LIBRARY OF CONGRESS • 

020 646 272 3 



PHOTOFiLE ENVELOPES 
MADE FROM 

PERMALIFE,, PAPER 

rnPYRiTF HnwAPn papfr miiis iNr 



CT 275 
.G77 
G62 



Copy 1 

EE JO I N DEE 



TO THE 



EEPLY 



ON M HE 



KENT'S HILL TRAGEDY 



BY 

JONAS GK^ENE. 



LEWISTON : 
PRINTED FOR THE ALTHOR. 

1868. I 







64314 






3 

«to 



KEJOINDER. 



THIS Dr. Torsey, whom I have arraigned before the bar of the public 
as doing, under prejudice, great wrong to rny child, is the motive 
power which runs that Institution on Kent's Hill. He does not 
meet me openly before the public and answer my complaints against 
him, but takes shelter behind the Trustees. While, nominally, this 
committee of three, of the Trustees, make the Reply, yet I know 
enough about lawyers and their ministers being employed in the 
work, to believe that it is the combined effort of this Faculty and 
Trustees, with the aid of many of their ministers and leading men 
through the State. Would it not have appeared more manly for 
that Faculty to have made their own defence ? But this is Dr. T. 
style — to keep his own paws out of the fire as long as he can, so 
that he can say, cc I have not done this, that, or the other thing." 

This committee in their reply say : " The Trustees have twice 
sought to have a fair aud thorough investigation, in the presence and 
with the concurrence of Mr. Greene, for the purpose of determining 
in a satisfactory manner whether the teachers or any other person is 
culpable/' Their first attempt to investigate this affair is fully 
explained in the "Crown Won" — on pages 132 to 136. See my 
objections there in full. 

l: But as the proposal was declined by Mr. Greene, on the ground 
that the committee was appointed by the trustees from their own 
members, the plan was abandoned." 

I now desire the reader and parent to note carefully their record 
as given in their reply — which record I had seen before I published 
my book. 

" Copy from Record of Trustees, Annual Meeting, June 5, 1867. 
— In accordance with a request of Dr. Torsey, it was voted to make 
a thorough investigation of the administration of the Faculty in the 
case of Miss M. Louise Greene, now deceased. (Messrs. Torsey and 
Pvobinson being both excused from acting in the investigation, at 



4 A REJOINDER TO THE REPLY 

their own request, and A. P. Morrill appointed chairman and J. J. 
Perry secretary). To this end, witnesses were examined at length, 
after which the subject was quite fully discussed by different mem- 
bers of the Board. Rev. S. Allen then offered the following pream- 
ble and resolution : 

" Whereas, certain reports have been published and industriously 
circulated during the past year, in which the administration of the 
school, and particularly the conduct of Rev. H. P. Torsey, the Pres- 
ident, in the case of the late Miss M. Louise Greene, has been 
severely censured, although no complaints have been made to the 
Trustees, by the parties professing to have been aggrieved; and 
whereas, such reports are damaging in their tendency, and are cal- 
culated to mislead the public mind ; therefore , 

" Resolved— First : That after a careful and patient hearing of the 
facts of the case, the Trustees find no ground for censure against H. 
P. Torsey, or any other person concerned in the management of the 
Institution, in the case of the late Miss M. Louise Greene ; that so 
far from having been " expelled," Miss Greene left the Institution 
of her own accord, without the knowledge of the teachers, and 
before the Faculty had taken action in her case ; and that in the 
judgment of the Trustees, the course pursued in the sad cas'e was 
extremely lenient and kind. 

" Resolved — Second : That the Trustees still have undiminished 
confidence in the ability and kindly disposition of Rev. H. P. Tor- 
sey, in the discharge of the difficult and responsible duties of the 
station he has filled for twenty-three years with success unsurpassed 
by that of any other teacher within our knowledge. 

" Resolved— Third : That the M. W. Seminary and Female Col- 
lege was never more deserving of the confidence of the public than 
at the present time ; and that the continued prosperity of the school, 
notwithstanding the damaging reports above referred to, is a gratify- 
ing popular endorsement of the administration of the Institution. 
" Attest : John J. Perry, Secretary pro tern." 

In their Reply they go on to say that, " During the session Mr. 
Torsey informed the Trustees that he desired them to investigate his 
administration, in the case of Miss Greene. Accordingly, an even- 
ing session was agreed upon for this purpose ; and Mr. Knight, who 
was still in the neighborhood, was invited to be present. He accord- 
ingly came in, and remained till the close of the investigation, at a 



ON THE KENT'S HILL TEAGEDY. 5 

late hour of the night." See on page 135, " Crown Won," more 
about this investigation. Mr. Knight now tells me that it was about 
seven o'clock when the Trustees went into session, and that an hour, 
at least, was spent in attending to other business — about the pur- 
chase or sale of real estate connected with the Institution, and the 
taxes on some wood land which they thought they ought not to pay. 
Between ten and eleven, Mr. K. says, this " careful and patient 
hearing of the facts in the case" — the words in their preamble — ■. 
this investigation closed, which was about an hour before the exer- 
cises in the chapel broke up — two and a-half or three hours given 
to this investigation, from which they made the aforesaid record, 
in which they say the Trustees find no ground for censure against 
H. P. Torsey or any other person concerned in the management of 
the Institution. 

MR. KNIGHT'S STATEMENT. 

On the morning of the sixth of June, 1867, Miss Mira I. Reed 
stated to me that Dr. Torsey having ascertained that she had received 
a letter from Mr. G-reene, came to her boarding place and desired to 
see it; and then with her consent carried it away. And I positively, 
deny that I was in any way employed to prevent Miss Reed from 
testifying in the case of Miss Greene, in the hearing before the 
Trustees ; and I also stated that no blame could be attached to the 
teachers, according to the testimony then and there given. 

Peru, March 21, 1868. A. M. Knight. 

They suppress, in the Reply, the last eight words of Mr. Knight 
as above, which greatly misrepresents him and deceives the public. 

See at the bottom of page 131, " Crown Won," what was pub- 
lished in the papers in regard to this pretended thorough investiga- 
tion, in June, 1866, in several journals of this State. The reader 
can now see where these published accounts came from, and the way 
Dr. T. and the Faculty were cleared from all blame. The careful 
and patient investigation, of one whole short evening in June — - 
a wonderful length of time to hear the evidence, discuss this sad 
case, and make out the preamble and the resolves! — -to make up 
their deliberate, sound judgment, and put on record, there to remain 
for all time, this wonderful decision and wicked statement, that no 
complaint had been made to the Trustees by the parties professing 
to have been aggrieved ! (See preamble before the resolves.) Why 



6 A REJOINDER TO THE REPLY 

this bitter complaint of Torsey, and my letter to Robinson, two of 
the Trustees, if no complaint had been made by us to them ? With 
the publication of that pretended investigation of that committee of 
students, May 6, 1867 (see " Grown Won/'' pages 127-8-9, for full 
explanations, — with this record, published to the world, exoner- 
ating the faculty from all blame, and the difficulty I encountered to 
get my statements before the public, as explained on page 144, 
" Grown Won " — with all their efforts to blame Louise, and to clear 
all those who dealt with her from blame — * I would ask any parent, 
What less would you have done under like circumstances than to 
publish such a book ? Please answer this question satisfactorily to 
yourselves before you condemn me. When all this had gone before 
the public — -the result of those ex-parte investigations — ^-and I had 
replied through my book, then they show for the first time some 
signs of fairness, when on the 14th of November, 1867, the trustees 
at a meeting held at Lewiston authorize William Deering, of Port- 
land, one of the trustees, to write me to join them in a reference, 
who wrote me, Nov. 15, 1867, and appended the following resolve, 
passed at the said trustees' meeting : 

'•'• Resolved— That William Deering, of Portland, be authorized to 
present to Mr. Greene the following proposition, viz : that Hons. W. 
Davis, E. Shepley, W.'Gr. Barrows, or such other disinterested persons 
as may be agreed upon, be requested to nominate a reference, con- 
sisting of disinterested and honorable legal gentlemen, to whom the 
whole matter, together with all the testimony and facts in the case, 
may be referred, and whose decision in tlie case shall be final, and 
whose opinion, together with the testimony, shall be laid before the 
community in such a manner as said reference may determine." 

To this I replied, November 20, 1867, as follows : 

" Mr. Deering,— Dear Sir,— Yours of the 15th insfc. came to 
hand last evening, and in reply permit me to say that as you (the 
trustees) have put on record in the book containing the records of 
the Institution, what purports to be a thorough investigation of the 
circumstances and death of my daughter, the substance of the same 
having been published to the world, from which decision I have 
appealed to the public and to the Ruler of the Universe for the just- 
ice of my course, by the decision of an intelligent public and the 
Judge of All I am willing to stand or fall. And, sir, were this your 



ON THE KENT'S HILL TRAGEDY. 7 

case, your child, how much less would you have been likely to have 
said thau I have, in a case so sad, if it was clear to your mind that 
it was prejudice that destroyed your child. Your proposition is 
respectfully declined. Yours, respectfully, 

Jonas G-reene. 7 ' 

The public may judge how I must feel about this show of fairness 
at this late day, after all I have showed had been done to try to clear 
this Faculty, and to disgrace the memory of Louise. See what has 
been attempted and done, as shown on pages 88—91, " Crown Won.'" 
It did seem to me to be too late, and they had gone too far in spread- 
ing their misrepresentations over the State against the deceased. I 
and the good people of the State may judge what is meant in that 
resolve by " honorable legal gentlemen, to whom the whole matter 
may be referred/' The public will, with all the twisting, turn- 
ing and maneuvering of this Faculty, and some of the Trustees, 
in pursuing me at Lewiston, while there for the remains of my child 
— see pages 130-31, "Crown Won" — and their persistent efforts to 
circumscribe my influence, to annoy and perplex me. What satis- 
faction I should have received from such a reference I am unable to 
judge. Have all the claims of justice and humanity, the moral and 
religious obligations, fled from the managers of this Institution ? 
Are there no responsibilities resting upon them but legal ones in 
this sad case ? 

Now comes in the Heply, the affidavit of Torsey ; and if I had 
nothing but the conversation we had with him, and others of the 
Faculty, and those who surround him, to rely upon in my defence, 
against him whom I believe to be unscrupulous, I should despair of 
getting him to admit one single thing which he said or did with 
.Louise, or said to us, which makes against him. But, thanks to an 
over- ruling Providence, who in a measure holds the destinies of us 
all in his hands, I have enough of his and her written statements, 
which I think will satisfy the public that all of his sworn statements 
in the Reply cannot be true. The reader can see in the " Crown 
Won," pp. 22-27, the whole explanation of his denial to let 
her go home with Mary Chapman, in August, 1864. See all of the 
correspondence between her and myself, between myself and Torsey; 
and when I wrote him she would leave his school unless some recon- 
ciliation could be had, he was in a place where, if he had any good 
reason for refusing her, and he had anything against her for viola- 



3 A REJOINDER TO THE REPLY 

tions of rules or any bad conduct, lie would have made use of it and 
given it to me in excuse for his rude conduct to her. In that long 
letter of Louise in August, 1864, giving a particular account of this 
affair, she says, " Preserve this letter, and if you doubt any part of 
it I am willing to read it myself before you to Dr. Torsey. It is 
only to-night that I saw him, and I've taken particular pains to 
write down what was said, as near as possible, word for word/' And 
now when I give quotations from Dr. Torsey's sworn statement in 
the Reply, which contradict Louise's statements in this letter, which 
I shall give word for word in quotations to disprove his statement. 
the public may judge, under all the circumstances, whether his 
recollection, after the lapse of four and a-half years, is more reliable 
as to what was said and done, when it is for his selfish interest to tell 
it as he chooses, than her's, which was written in the very hour in 
which it transpired, to her parents, with the assurance that she would 
read it to them in the presence of Torsey. 

From Torsey's affidavit — "At the time Miss Greene met me on 
the Seminary grounds, and desired permission to leave the Hill and 
spend the night and the next day witb Mary Chapman, I asked her 
if she had a permit from her father. She said she had not." 

From Louise's letter — "So when she came I went to Dr. Torsey 
for leave to go home with her, carrying the general permission you 
had given me, and on the strength of which he had heretofore 
granted my request." 

He (Torsey) says — -"A short time afterwards she met me again on 
the street, and again importuned me." 

She (Louise) gives a minute and particular history of her asking 
him, when, where, and all about it, and says, " all this occupied 
about three miuutes ; we were talking on the sidewalk." Here 
is the length and oa ly time she importuned him (as shown by 
this letter written at the time), except the second time, at his house. 
She says she made the request to him once on the sidewalk, and 
stopped about three minutes, and then went to Miss Robinson, and 
in about a half-hour again went to his house. 

Torsey says in his affidavit — "This refusal of favors referred 
exclusively to her going to Mr. Chapman's, and was not on account 
of any difficulty between Mr. C. and myself, for we were on the most 
friendly terms, but because she had been there three times without 
-permission." 

August 29, 1864, Dr. T. wrote me and said, il Once I gave per- 



ON THE KENT'S HILL TRAGEDY. 9 

mission to Louise to go to the Corner to visit, aDd once she went 
without permission. Last Friday she asked to go again and spend 
the night. I told her we should give fewer leaves of absence this 
term; and after I had retired for the night she came again. I 
answered her in the same manner and in the same words as before." 

Now I submit those two statements to the public — one written to 
me at the time, when he would have availed himself of any excuse 
or reason possible against Louise. He then put her offence, only 
once of going to the Corner without leave. (See on page 26, 
" Crown Won/' how this is explained.) Now he swears it was 
three times. He then says nothing about his neuralgic pain in his 
eyes and head; now he would seem to make that as an excuse. If 
all was so smooth and pleasant with Mr. Chapman, then why did 
Mary leave his school ? Mr. Chapman has once given me a different 
version of this affair. 

She says in this long letter, " I was advised to go home with 
Mary C., but thought it not best." For the truth of this statement 
I will say that on the 7th of November, 1866, 'Mary Chapman told 
me and my wife that she advised her to go, and said she ought to 
have gone. • 

I am willing to put Louise's record,* made the very day of the 
conversation in Miss Robinson's room, April 11, 1865 (see pp. 28-9 
of " Crown Won"), against Torsey's statement, made from recollec- 
tion, in 1868, in the Reply. Read both, and judge which is true. 

Again 'Torsey says — "The Monday evening before Louise left, 
Miss Case called on me and informed me that Miss Greene had been 
taking articles of clothing not belonging to her, and that Mrs. Dag- 
gett and herself were investigating the matter. I requested her to 
do it quietly, and to say nothing to any one about the matter. I had 
also learned Miss Greene had taken money." Mark well, that Torsey 
has here svjorn that on Monday evening, which was the 21st of May, 
before any investigation was had, and before Miss Case and Mrs. 
Daggett had been into Louise's room at all, to see what they could 
find, and before any one had accused Louise of taking the money, 
— for it is known to everybody there and elsewhere who knows any- 
thing about her confession, which was on Tuesday, the 22d, that she 
made that confession, not to Dr. Torsey, but to Mr. Daggett and his 
wife and Miss Case, and Torsey could not have known anything 
about her taking the money, — yet he on oath has certified that he 
had also learned that Miss Greene had taken money. 



10 A REJOINDER TO THE REPLY 

His admission here that he knew all about her being accused, aud 
that the investigation was to go on, and he taking no measures to 
notify her parents, makes his case look worse and worse. And can 
I believe him when he says, " Had she not determined to leave, the 
case would have been presented to the Faculty for final settlement. 
In the investigation and settlement her parents would have been 
allowed to take a part" ? He says, '' On Wednesday morning, at 
the request of the Faculty, I called to converse with her/'' Who 
believes that they had any intention of notifying me of her trouble ? 
It does not appear, by the course they were pursuing, that they 
intended any such thing. 

In the Reply, Torsey says, referring to his conversation with Lou- 
ise the morning she left, "After she determined to go home, she 
said she would go to her sister's room and make arrangements with 
her." Again he says, in another paragraph, '"Nor did I say, if she 
went to Lewiston she must make arrangements with Chestina." See 
how he contradicts the last two assertions, in a letter written to me 
May 27, 1866, four days after Louise left, when all was fresh in his 
mind: " She named going by the way of Lewiston, or writing you 
to meet her there, but did not insist upon it any further than merely 
mentioning it; finally agreeing, as I understood her, to make no 
arrangements herself, but allow Ohestina to make them/' As I have 
said in the " Crown Won," does this not look as if he knew she was 
not capable' of taking care of herself?" Again he says, "She 
thought she had better leave that day." Hear her, in that letter to 
her sister, written the day she left, contradict this last statement of 
his : " Dr. Torsey informed me this morning that I had better leave 
to-day." See this letter in full, p. 39, " Crown Won." She does 
not say she thought she had better leave, but soon adds, " How I 
feel, God only knows." See on page .117 of " Crown Won," about 
his kind treatment of students. 

In view of the foregoing statements and contradictions of Torsey, 
and all of his twisting and turning, as shown in my pamphlet of 
162 pages, I am not at all surprised that he should deny the truth 
of my book, and declare it grossly false under oath — that is but a 
small offence compared to what I believe him guilty of. He has a 
right to his opinions, and I to mine, but the public will judge im- 
partially. 

One othei^ point. If Mr. and Mrs. Daggett and Miss Case said 
nothing to Louise about the school knowing it, and as they say the 



ON THE KENT'S HILL TRAGEDY. 11 

Kilass knew nothing about it until the morning she left, and the stu- 
dents none of them knew it, how did she know the school knew it, 
and it was common talk and public property on the Hill, before she 
left? If Dr. Torsey did not tell her, for no one else talked with 
her, as -she writes in her class letter, who did inform her? If I 
could have had an opportunity to retrieve the past at the Hill, who 
did prevent her from having a chance to retrieve the past at the 
Hill ? Who had a long talk with her just before she left, and just 
before she wrote that letter? Will the public believe Torsey did not 
tell her the school knew it, and that she had better leave that day ? 
See pp. 37-8, " Crown Won/' for further explanations. 

Torsey, in the Reply, testifies—- 1 ' I then determined to send some 
one to Lewiston to look after her. I spoke to B. Harriman to go 
with his team; biK after consulting with others I concluded to 
ascertain first by the rerara train whether she had stopped at Lew- 
iston." 

Miss M. I. Reed says, p. 54, " Crown Won," that Mr. Harriman 
agreed to go to Lewiston after Louise with Chestina, and she told 
him she would get Chestina ready in fifteen minutes. Miss Reed, in 
her recantation affidavit does not deny this, nor does Mr. Harriman. 
With those statements of Torsey's, as .above, and the positive agree- 
ment of Mr. Harriman to go to Lewiston after her, who will doubt 
the truth of my logic on pages 90, 138-9, " Crown Won" ? 

I will leave the public to judge of the truth of Torsey's state- 
ments — he being the implicated party, and testifying in his own 
defence— and his denial ' £ That I told her that the school knew it"; 
and R. Smith's denial that he told me that Torsey told him so is 
shown to be false by the following affidavit : 

: J In the month of August or September, 1866, I heard Roscoe 
Smith tell Jonas Greene, of Peru, that Dr. Torsey told him (Smith) 
that in answer to Louise's request to have this affair kept from the 
school, and she be permitted to stay and graduate, he told her that 
it would be impossible, for the school knew it. 

" Wm. S. Walker." 

<c Cb d >3., larch 21, 1868.— Personally appeared before me 
Will i t S. Walker, the above-named, and made oath that the above 
st i . by him made and signed, is true. 

"Wm. Woodsum, Jr., Trial Justice." 

•ly to the affidavits of P. A. Robinson, J. L. Morse, D, Gr. 



12 A REJOINDER TO THE REPLY 

Harriman, and Miss P. B. Robinson, and notwithstanding their accu- 
sations against Miss Greene and myself, and their denials of the facts 
as stated in the " Crown Won," in regard to that conversation in the 
Faculty meeting, I affirm it to be true, as stated by us. Why it 
escaped their notice that Torsey stamped his right foot upon the 
floor so hard as to jar the room, is more than I can tell — -unless they 
were so accustomed to his outbursts of passion and show of authority 
as not to notice it. Torsey does not deny it ; Miss Case says, "• he 
did not, to my knowledge/' I utterly deny, and pronounce as false, 
that Torsey said, "What avails all this crimination? The object 
now should be the finding of Louise. How can we aid you in this 
matter ? We are ready to do anything in our power to assist you." 
There is not a word of truth in those statements. The only thing 
Torsey did say, near the close, when it appeared as though he 
wanted to get rid of us — he did say, " What do you want us to- 
do?" — making no reference to Louise in connection with this 
remark. 

And now I wish to put one question to this B. G. Harriman. 
How dares he to make oath to all this conversation down to its 
close, when he and all that were present know that he left the room 
and house more than an hour and a-half before this Faculty meet- 
ing closed ? 

Miss Case admits much in her affidavit which others have denied;, 
which goes to show what Louise said — " I think she said she took 
the clothing from necessity, as all her's had been lost, and intended 
to restore them at the close of the term," She further says, " Upon 
being questioned she confessed she took the five dollars." And I 
here again say Mr. Daggett did tell me she (Louise) confessed she 
took the five dollars, not denying a word. 

Mrs. Daggett states under oath that, " We did not go into Dr. 
Torsey's part of the house; nor did he have anything to do, directly 
or indirectly, with the investigation in regard to the clothing or 
money." Now hear what Mr. Torsey says on oath — " The Monday 
evening before Louise left Miss Case called on me and informed me 
that Miss Greene had been taking, articles of clothing not belonging 
to her; and that Mrs. Daggett and herself were investigating the 
matter. I requested her to do it quietly, and to say nothing to any 
one about the matter. I had also learned that Miss Greene had 
taken some money." Chestina writes from Virginia, March 31, 
1868, and says — "Miss Case and Mrs. Daggett did go into Dr. Tor- 



ON THE KENT 7 S HILL TRAGEDY. 13- 

sey's part of the house first, that morning they came and searched 
the room ; and I can tell you the way — I remember particularly. I 
went down to the college to practice. There Mira told me that 
Miss Case and Mrs. Daggett had gone up to my room and wished to 
see me alone. I immediately started back to my room and overtook 
them. They said they were going up to my room to see me. We 
walked along till we got to the house. They opened the front gate 
and went into the front door. I went into the side gate and hur- 
ried into my room, picked up some things laying about the room, 
and changed my dress before they came in. I was just fastening my 
dress, with trembling fingers, when I heard them coming. I remem- 
ber this distinctly, and what dress I put on — it was that slate-colored 
one, like Estella's gymnastic dress." Yet Mrs. Daggett has on oath 
denied this fact. Chestina further writes me that she had heard 
Louise speak against Torsey several times. " Louise did advise me 
to enter the Seminary Course, as I should be put forward more, and 
be required to read before the school ; and in many ways it would be 
better for me. ' And you will not be obliged to stay ; you can leave 
any time.' " Then was it true, what Mrs. Daggett declares on oath? 

Mrs. Daggett is quite ready in her sworn statement to eharge me 
with making " additions, omissions, changes and exaggerations, in 
my book, which are untrue," as to herself and Mr. Daggett. She 
further says, " I never saw in the wash such garments as Mrs. 
'Greene describes in her statement." I wish to ask her if she does 
the washing, or has personal knowledge of every article those sixty 
girls put into the wash ? And is she trying to dispute Mrs. Greene 
in regard to the articles Louise had at that term ? It may be as 
well for Mrs. Daggett to explain to me, and perhaps the public 
would like to know, how she came in possession of Louise's Adel- 
phian pin, plainly marked with Louise's name, which she kept, with 
several other artieles of Louise's, for more than four months— after 
we had written them that various articles of Louise's were missing. 
See 4i Crown Won,' 1 pp. 112-13, when and how they were obtained. 
I here re-assert, and will say I do positively know, that the only 
artiele named by Mrs. Daggett, in her statement of May 30, 1866, 
as found in Louise's possession, which was marked, was an old linen 
handkerchief with holes in it. 

Sarah E. Dow says — "I think it incredible that she eould-have 
lost so many elothes in eleven weeks as she is represented to have 
lost during her last term." I do not know how Miss Dow should 



14 A EEJOINDER TO THE REPLY 

know anything about Louise's under-clothes, except such as she bor- 
rowed of her to wear. 

In answer to Eliza C. Bowers's very singular affidavit, I feel com- 
pelled to make a thorough rejoinder, and will ask the careful perusal 
by the public of all the facts here produced. Miss Bowers says — 
" I further say that Dr. Torsey was impartial and kind in his treat- 
ment of the students under his care. There was scarcely a student 
who did not think thus of him, and who did not love and respect 
him as a teacher and friend. I never knew him to make any dis- 
tinction among the students under his care, or to show any partiality 
on account of any religious or sectarian views of any student. I 
have never intended, in anything I have written or said, to cast any 
blame upon the Faculty, in their treatment of my lamented class- 
mate, M. Louise Greene; but sincerely believe they desired and 
intended to exercise justice and kindness towards her in this matter. 
Mr. G-reene has given in his book several extracts from my private 
letters to him and Mrs. Greene, and S. R. Newell (not, however, 
giving my name), in answer to letters addressed to- me, proposing 
numerous questions about the affair connected with my unfortunate 
classmate ) also about the Faculty, especially Dr. Torsey, and Miss 
Case, the Preceptress* These extracts are published without my 
knowledge and consent, and in violation of the confidence which I 
placed in Mr. Greene. These extracts make me say what I did not 
intend to say, and what the letters do not say. Were the whole 
letters published ? '* 

These charges against me compel me in self-defence to publish six 
of her letters, four to Mrs. Greene and two to Mr. Newell, in full, as 
they are all bearing upon this sad case ; and more than all from 
which I have made a single quotation in my book ; and the public 
will see that none of them are marked " private" or "confidential.'*' 
And all can judge with what truthfulness these charges are made 
against me. 

Miss Bowers further says — " The extract on page 138 was in 
answer to a letter of Mr. Greene, dated June 22, 1867." Then she 
quotes from what I wrote her. Then she gives what she says is the 
substance of her reply to me ; and further says, u I am confirmed in 
this by a friend of mine, to whom I read my letter to Mr. Greene." 
I will inform Miss Bowers, her friend and the public, that I did not 
in my book quote a single extract or word from this letter of Miss 
Bowers. Thus she and her friend are very much mistaken in what 



ON THE KENT'S HILL TRAGEDY. 15 

she did write me. And further, she has given, in her affidavit, for 
what she wrote me what another student did write me in June, 
1867, and from which I did make the extract on page 138, " Crown 
Won " — from which Miss Bowers, in her zeal to implicate me and 
clear them, has mistaken this for her own language. I have both 
letters before me, and know what I write. 

MISS BOWERS'S LETTERS. 

Belgrade, Sept. 24, 1866. 
My dear Mrs. G-reene, — I was very glad to receive a letter from 
you, setting my fears at re3t in regard to your feelings toward us. I 
did not believe you thought hardly of us, but I wanted to know 
from your own lips. We all truly sympathised and suffered with 
you. I never felt so badly in my life, except when my mother died, 
and that was a very different grief. I am just now excited by the 
rumor that Louise is at her uncle's, in Petersburg, Ya. I cannot 
believe it, it is such good news. The way the story goes is this : A 
gentleman travelling South met a Miss Greene, from Maine, at your 
husband's brother's, and conversed with her. He described her, and 
the description agreed with dear Louise's appearance. Knowing you 
would know if it is true, by this time, as Ches. was gone there, I 
write you immediately — hoping, yet scarcely daring to hope, it may 
prove true. If you have heard from Ches., if you will, please write 
me immediately, I am so anxious to know. I can think of nothing 
else than perhaps Louise is alive, well, and with friends. So will 
you please take for an excuse for my not writing you a letter ; 
but be assured, I feel the deepest sympathy and regard for you, and 
wish to be numbered among your friends for Louise's sake. If 
this rumor should prove true, I shall write her a sisterly letter, as of 
old. Nothing that has occurred will make the slightest difference in 
my feelings. But I dare not think of this ; I dare not hope the 
rumor is true. Write me soon, and believe me, with love, 

Truly your friend. Eliza Bower 



:s. 



Belgrade, Oct. 14, 1866. 
My Dear Mrs. G-reene, — I received your letter containing the 
sad news to-night. I've never ceased to hope till to-night that Lou- 
ise was still living. I knew not till now how strong those hopes 
were. How terrible ! that her poor body has lain there all this time. 
I am so glad she is found ; yet the uncertainty, with hope, was 



1/v* A REJOINDER TO THE REPLY 

almost better. I wisli I could be with you, to pay my last tribute of 
love and respect to dear Louise's body, even. But 1 fear it is not 
possible, though I thought at first I must and would be there. I 
think, if I remember, there is no way to go in one day, by cars or 
stage ) and I am much too far away to come with a team. I can 
say truly I shall be there in spirit, as will all the class. I've written 
them all this eve., except Miss Forsett j and I judged you had writ- 
ten her, or would before this, and I'd just sent a letter to her this 
morn. I am very glad to say that none of the class, to my know- 
ledge, said they would not graduate with Louise. I think I should 
have known it if they had. Truly, I never said or thought so. The 
rumor must be classed with a thousand others, false like that one, 
with no foundation whatever, saving the imagination of some gossip- 
ping persons. I have not words to express my sympathy with you, 
or my own sorrow, which is very deep ; but I scarcely dare speak of 
it when I think of your deeper grief. We can only pray", knowing 
Jesus suffered too, and can and does pity our suffering. Louise is at 
rest now. I can only hope she is better off than she would be if 
tossed on the billows of this troubled life. If you can, I wish you 
would write me all about how you found her, and how long you 
think she had lain there. It seems as if I must see her, even as she 
must be. I cannot realize that it is our own Louise that we loved 
so much that I am writing of. It is too dreadful to think of. If I 
had only spoken to Louise of this that morning ; but how could we ? 
We would believe nothing of it until she was gone. So we talked 
to her until she went away, as if our hearts were not full of bitter 
anguish. When we knew the truth, we believed her good and true, 
but only suddenly tempted. No one of the class but feels so, and 
would have then received her with open arms if we only could have 
had the opportunity. If Louise could only have known how we 
suffered that she left us so. Addie Webb and I called for her 
Wednesday morning, to go to breakfast. We went down to the hall 
together, and that was the last time I saw her. I was longing then 
to throw my arms about her and tell her of my love, but could not ; 
— how could we then ? We were almost crazy ourselves. I wish I 
could see you and talk of these things ; sometime I hope I shall 
Good bye. I shall think of you hourly all this sad week ; and I '11 
not forget you when I pray. Jesus only can give support in this 
hour. 
Most truly and affectionately yours, Eliza E. Bowers. 



on the rent's hill tragedy. 17 

Belgrade, Dec. 11, 186(1 
My Dear Mrs. Greene,— I should have written you before, but 
my pen seems almost palsied. I can speak no words of consolation 
to you; yet T feel, 0! so much, for you — and my own grief is not 
light. I began a letter for Ches. ; but I could not write what I 
wished, so I threw it aside. I suppose she is in Virginia. Is she 
not ? I regret so much now that I did not go to your place ; but I 
did not know how you would feel about it. It is so dreadful that 
Louise should die so ! It is so mysterious ! Did you ever see the 
poem Louise wrote for the public Adelphian last spring ? It now 
seems prophetic of her fate. I ask myself every day, Why is it so? 
1 dare not judge the teachers of intentional wrong — though that 
some great wrong has been done I think none can deny. In regard 
to what you ask me, if the others you named would have been 
treated so, I know not what to say. There certainly ought to have 
been no difference. There seems to me a fatality about it — about 
everything connected with that last term. We can never understand 
with mortal powers ; but I trust sometime all things will be clear, 
and we shall see all things in their true light. I would like some of 
Louise's hair very much. I have a picture of her which I would 
not part with for money. It is very strange where so many of 
Louise's things are. Louise's room was open after she went away 
till you came for her things e yet it scarcely seems that any of the 
girls would go there and take anything; though there are things 
taken as supposed every term by the help, and were last term at the 
close of the term. I have in my possession two napkins which 
belong to Louise. ' I forgot them when you came for her things, and 
they've lain in my truuk ever since. I 've intended to send them 
to you, but have neglected, or waited for an opportunity. I see you 
are to erect a monument over Louise's place of death. I shall 
visit the spot, I hope, but only with such bitter feelings of distress 
for her fate. Louise was very much loved by the students, and with 
but very few exceptions. I think no one will deny that. I always 
loved her, even before I knew her well ; and since I 've known her 
intimately I 've counted her among my dearest friends. Louise was 
a true friend, and«had the kindest, most sympathising heart of any 
girl I knew. We always sought her when in trouble or sorrow. I 
shall never forget the last time I was sick there. She sat up with 
me. I was so nervous I was almost crazy. She bathed my head 
and petted me till I was perfectly calm. I should always remember 
B 



18 A REJOINDER TO THE REPLY 

her with the kindest gratitude for that alone, if for no other cause. 
Her life was full of sympathy and care for those around her. 
Write me again, if you consider this worthy your time. I shall 
ever be happy to hear from you for Louise's sake, and hope some 
time to see you. Remember me in love and sympathy to your 
family. 

Affectionately, E. 0. Bowers. 

Before I give her letters to Mr. Newell, perhaps I should explain 
why her class was written to for such a statement of her character, 
as they understood it, prior to the accusations against her. It was 
because Mrs. Daggett had, in November, 1866, admitted to us that- 
she did accuse Louise in that investigation of being an " habitual 
thief"; and gave us to understand that the students did not think 
well of Louise ; and very unfavorable reports were continually 
reaching us, as coming from the Faculty, against Louise's previous 
character. 

Belgrade, Dec. 17, 1866. 
Mr. Newell, — Your communication is just received. I shall be 
most happy to do as you wish, for Miss Greene was a very dear 
friend, and one highly esteemed by me. I wish time to consult 
other members of the class. How soon do you wish to publish 
this ? It will be a week or more before I can hear from the mem- 
bers of the class, as we are widely separated. If you will wait this 
time you '11 oblige, 

Yery respectfully, Eliza C. Bowres. 

Belgrade, Dec. 28, 1866. 
Mr. Newell, — I scarcely know what to say to you after writing 
my former letter. I was unable to consult the class, we were so far 
separated, so we might act together. I thought then I could as 
easily speak to the public of Miss Greene as to you, or any one in 
private. But when trying to write for publication I could not do it ? 
and for several reasons think it best not to publish anything. I 
regarded her character as above reproach until this last act ; this I 
could say, but it has been said continually to the* public. We all 
know she ought to have been saved j but we, as it were, were para- 
lyzed with grief, and did not act, as we now regret so much. 1 
have written Mrs. Greene more fully, 

Yery respectfully, E. C . Bowers, 



ON THE KENT'S HILL TRAGEDY. 19 

Belgrade, Dec. 28, 1866. 
My Dear Mrs. Greene, — You probably know of the letter we 
as members of dear Louise's class have received from Mr. Newell, 
of your town. I thought immediately it would be a pleasant task, 
and wrote Mr. Newell that I could and would do so most gladly, but 
wished to consult the class. I have been unable to consult the class 
so we can- act together. I have tried to write; and I could write of 
Louise's character with much pleasure ; but when I came to say, 
until this last act, I could not write it for the public to criticise. 
I know Louise took that money from her letter; but I believe that 
for a moment she was under an influence she could not resist, and 
therefore not guilty of an intentional error. The culd eyes of indif- 
ferent people cannot feel thus. I think of Louise's last request, to 
forget her; and cannot feel to bring her before the public again, 
which were she living she would shrink from, most of anything. 
Her letter I prize highly. I believe every word of it, and have not 
the slightest feeling but love and kindness for her memory. If it 
would do Louise any good I would do anything right. I cannot 
think you will misunderstand my motives in thinking it not best for 
me to publish a statement of this. I do not know where you were 
intending to have this published, or in what form, but suppose in 
the State papers. Please Jet me hear from you again soon; and 
believe me truly your friend, E. C. Bowers, 

These letters show her to have the best opinion of Louise, and 
her desire to have the class consulted and act together. But there 
must have been some power behind this naturally truthful and kind- 
hearted young lady to have prevented her, as her letters show, from 
giving Mr. Newell a first-rate statement of Louise's standing up "to 
the time of her trouble. None of her class were requested to say a 
word about that last act, or to blame anybody therefor. Who has 
advised, assisted, and obtained from her the very flattering state- 
ments in her affidavit, as to Torsey's love for and justice to his 
students, his impartiality and kindness to them, and how she knows 
that, is more than I know. And as to her belief that the Faculty 
desired and intended to exercise justice and kindness towards 
Louise, seems to be somewhat doubted by her letters. And what 
has led her to make such statements as to what she wrote me, and 
the unfair extracts she accuses me of making from her letters, I do 
not know. But one thing I do know, that Miss Bowers's home is in 



20 A REJOINDER TO THE REPLY 

Monmouth, the present residence of Rev. D. B. Randall, who is one 
of the authors of the Reply to my book, and he is also one of the 
Trustees of that Seminary and College. 

In regard to Miss A. S. Fuller's affidavit : 

I did not call several times in the winter of 1867, to talk with 
her about Louise. Only once I called and talked with her. She 
then told me what I state in my pamphlet, on page 78. The second 
time I called I met her and another lady just out on the sidewalk. 
She stepped into the entry. I thea told her 1 only called to say 
that Mrs. G-reeue desired to have her write and give her a descrip- 
tion of the garment, as it was said it was plainly marked. (Mrs. F. 
had told me that it was not.) She agreed to do so. We went 
immediately out. The lady waited outside for her. I called again 
for this letter; am confident I did pot stop at all then. These 
are the only times I called on her. There was no urging at all 
about getting that letter j and why she should so state I cannot tell, 
nor why she says that was a strictly private letter. There is no 
such request or intimation in the same. If this classmate regrets 
that a " word in season was not uttered by our class to save her, 5 ' or 
to go to her the night before she left and utter words of sympathy 
and consolation, how can she say that " I have always thought that 
the Faculty did everything they could have done to save her" ? If 
a word from her class would have saved her, would not the- same 
from the Faculty have been as likely to have accomplished the same ? 

There is not a person living who shall read all the facts in this sad 
case but who would see and believe that if the female portion of 
that Faculty had gone to Louise in a kind and friendly way, that 
night or the morning she left, and spoken words in kindness and 
sympathy, they would have saved her. Why is it that this class- 
mate shows so willing a disposition to clear the Faculty from all 
blame, and then represents the largeness of Louise's faults, and 
closes with the assertion that she committed "suicide"? That is- 
unknown to any person. As this assertion is made by other parties,. 
I will here state that when her remains were found, though very 
much decayed, they were in no way disturbed. She lay nearly 
straight, with her right foot crossed and resting on the leit, with 
her shawl on, close up around her neck; the left hand laying on her 
breast, close up to the crossing of the shawl. It had the appearance 
of holding the shawl close together under her neck in her lust 



ON THE KENT'S HILL TRAGEDY. 21 

moments. This hand was not gloved. The other hand was thrown 
back under her head, as persons are accustomed to do in such 
position, to rest the head upon, especially if they have no pillow, 
or to ease the head from a hard substance. Her hat and reticule 
were set close up under the large projecting rock under which she 
partly la}', she laying her head a little from the rock, on a small 
mossy knoll, thus giving room for her hat and reticule between her 
head and the rock. Her feet and legs lay closer to the rock. Her 
water-proof had been taken off, and appeared to have been spread 
over her when she lay down. The wind had blown or slipped it 
over towards the rock. It there lay nearly the whole length of her; 
near the top a handkerchief had gone into the fold with it. Her 
head and shoulders had slipped off this mossy knoll further from 
the rock, which caused the head and shoulders to turn on to the 
right side. Her hand was under her cheek, where it was so 
much decayed that some of her teeth and finger nails were left in 
the decayed matter when her remains were removed. Three weeks 
after, Mrs. Greene and I found several teeth, and a finger ring, with 
some finger bones, in the space of the size of a hand, covered with 
a putrid mass and leaves. This hand had a kid glove on, mostly 
decayed. The other glove was in her reticule. In her reticule 
were found a common ink-bottle, pen, pencil, note paper, a few 
envelopes, some other small articles, and a small memoranda. There 
was not a word written or anything there found to give any explana- 
tion of her fate. Dr. Harris, who assisted in removing her remains, 
says there was no evidence how or from what cause she died. He 
thinks she did not take the poison, which it is believed she purchased 
at a shop in Lewiston. He gave me several good reasons why he 
thought so. If she died from the effects of poison, how could she 
lay so apparently quiet, straight, smooth, with her hands and feet in 
that position, just as calm to all appearance as if she had lain down to 
sleep. So all testify who saw her. I have thought that she lay 
down tired, exhausted, broken-hearted and chilled to death. How 
long she was there before she died, no one knows. That she did 
■commit suicide, no person is authorised to say. And whoever says 
that shows a disposition and would, in my opinion, exaggerate every 
circumstance possible against her. 

In R. Ella Pike's affidavit-— 

I find her very ready to say that " Louise would evade the rules 
whenever she could without detection. Her general character was 



22 A REJOINDER TO THE REPLY 

that of a sly, cunning person." These are bold assertions, for one 
who had roomed near her but a portion of one term.. She never 
boarded in the College, while Louise was there thirteen terms. She 
was not in her class, and had but a slight acquaintance with Louise. 
While in the " Reply," Miss Perley, who was one of her class, and 
had known her intimately for three years, says : "As to my opinion 
of the character of Louise I can truly say I knew nothing against her. 
I never knew any violation of rules on her part. As to her veracity,. 
I never questioned it. Of her possession of a skeleton key I had no 
knowledge. Of Louise as a classmate I loved her truly, and at her 
death I was a sincere mourner." Feeling compelled to publish 
Miss Bowers r s letters (another classmate of Louise), which brings 
out a strong re-endorsement of Louise's good character, her great 
love for her, and fear of the sad results which followed — and no 
doubt but what at the time that feeling was largely shared by all of 
her class, as well as all others on the Hill — with the long personal 
knowledge and intimate acquaintance that Misses Perley, Bowers 
and Webb (three of her classmates) had with Louise, and their 
endorsement of her general good character,, the public cannot fail 
to see why students of slight acquaintance should show such dispo- 
sition to defame her " general character/' 5 Let those who wish to 
know what those students who knew her intimately for the three 
years say of Louise's character, turn to and read, pp. 61-3, " Crown 
Won," what there is said of our departed child. 

Miss Pike says—" On the morning Louise left she came to Ches- 
tina's room, where I was studying alone." (How came she in other 
girls' rooms in their absence ?) She goes on to tell such inconsist- 
encies, and what all the subsequent acts of Louise do not sustain^ 
and shows such a disposition to make out so bad a string of state- 
ments against her, and make so favorable a case, for Torsey,. and so 
conflicting with Chestina^s and Miss Heed's sworn statements, in. • 
this long extract of what she has chosen to get up against the dead 
to please the living, that I put but little confidence in anything she 
has stated. I shall let her pass by, reminding her that she could 
find some violations of rules nearer home, if she- should try. Does- 
she remember, in the absence of Dr. Torsey, in May, 186.6, of any 
riding, hunting and fishing excursions made by students, in which 
her brother took a part, with my team, in the absence of Mrs., 
Greene and Louise„ May 12, 1866, and the threat she made to- tell 
Dr. Torsey if they did not. catch her any fish, and other small acts of 
disobedience ? 



ON THE KENT'S HILL TRAGEDY. 23 

In Miss N. E. Hunton's statement she says — 

u I gave him a minute description of the undersleeves, not only 
of the manner in which they were made, the peculiar stitches, etc., 
but also of the material of which they were made, and of the differ- 
ent marks by which I was able to identify them." What a charge 
this student brings against me, and what is the offense ? What are 
the different marks she gave me, by which she could identify them ? 
Let her letter answer. " The above mentioned articles were of my 
own make, and consequently the stitches were somewhat peculiar ; 
moreover, the garment consisted of a part of a dress I had worn in 
my younger days." This is every word of description given me in 
that letter, which I now have before me. And no other mark was 
given me in that letter but the peculiar stitches, and no description 
as to how they were made is given whatever. The reader sees how 
false are her accusation and statement of what she wrote me. There 
was no other mark whatever given me but what appeared in the 
Ct Crown Won.'' A person who will make such a false statement 
about what she had written me, I will not believe a word she says 
about Louise speaking in Torsey's praise, or anything else of what 
she pretends to know of Louise's feelings. 

In regard to Mrs. H. E. Merrill's statement of the amount of 
washing done for my girls in the fall term of 1865, it is false, so far 
as Estelle is named. She was not there that term. And as to the 
amount of clothing washed by her, if she means the public to 
understand that was all the clothing the girls had washed while 
there, she is much mistaken. The girls used to do more or less of 
their washing each week ; and while Mrs. Grreene was there, about 
four weeks, while two of them were sick with fever, she washed 
some things every day ; and several times bundles were sent home 
to wash,»and other articles taken back. As we had to make three 
trips home during those four weeks, she could not know much about 
their clothing. This shows a foolish yet labored' effort to make out 
something in their favor. The statements of other persons and stu- 
dents as to the amount of clothing she had, and not hearing her 
complain of losing clothing, etc., and Mrs. Patterson's statement 
from recollection after the lapse of six or seven years, about what 
Louise lost or how abundant her wardrobe was, and the assurance 
that " Mrs. Greene's statement of her daughters' losses is not cor- 
rect/' — this attempt to contradict Mrs. Greene, the mother of Louise, 



24 A REJOINDER TO THE REPLY 

in regard to her statement about the loss of clothing, the mother 
who furnished all, who knew all about the making, marking, wash- 
ing, ironing, packing, and unpacking, six times a year, to take to 
and from that school for five years, — yes, I repeat, those students, 
stewardess, and others, who could know but little about her under- 
garments, to attempt to contradict the statement of the mother's own 
positive knowledge of facts that must be fully known in such a case 
to every mother sending a daughter far away into a college to board, 
among so many students — and no person who knows Mrs. Greene 
and the fact that she had free access, year in and year out, to my 
store of goods of almost every description, but knows that she would 
not send her eldest daughter to such a place without ample under- 
garments. Mrs. Greene says such garments of Louise were abundant 
at every term she was there. Such attempts by this Faculty to 
work up something to oifset our statement of her losses, our positive 
knowledge of the facts we state, may satisfy their friends ; but the 
public at large will see through their labored efforts — their access 
to and the favorites by whom they are surrounded, and the motives 
of the members of this denomination and those whom they can influ- 
ence, to over-state every little thing in favor of them and against 
Louise and her friends — to put much confidence in this effort, and 
a thousand other things worked up and stated in the Reply. 

Mr. Packard's affidavit — 

In regard to my going to his place to purchase his house, I can 
inform him that he is entirely mistaken. I did not go there to pur- 
chase it. I went to carry articles to my girls who were occupying a 
room in his house. He then for the first time told me he was about 
to leave the State, and should sell his stand if he could. I had 
learned that Torsey had made him a standing offer of $2500 before 
I talked with Mr. Packard. I knew this was said to be : a good 
house, and desired to look it all over, thinking some day I might 
want to purchase or build a like one. He showed me the same, 
stated his price, which was $2700, and his reason for selling, etc. 
I made him no offer whatever. But I then thought he would make 
use of the circumstance of my being there and looking it over, to help 
him sell it to Torsey. He (Torsey) would not like to have me so near 
to him, perhaps remembering my plain letter to him a year and a-half 
before. And I have good reason to believe (as Torsey was seen talk- 
ing with Mr. Packard that morning, before this looking over the house 



ON THE KENT'S HILL TRAGEDY. 25 

took place) that he (Packard) made the most out of it, to make Torsey 
believe I was there to purchase, and help him get his price, the other 
S200. While I was gone two or three hours to the Corner on business. 
Torsey closed the bargain at $2700. And the representations of 
Mr. Packard to Torsey at that time may have something to do with 
the production of this affidavit, which bears evidence of haste or 
carelessness. One gross mistake for a man of his business capacities 
to state under oath — " Early in the spring of 1866 I determined to 
sell there and remove from the State." Now I would like to have 
Dr. Torsey, from the date of his deed from Mr. Packard to him of 
the sale of this stand, inform Mr. Packard that in the spring of 
1866, he (Packard) had no such property to sell on Kent's Hill ; 
that his deed of the same was given on or about 24th of January, 
1866; and that Mr. Packard had, long before the spring of 1866, 
ceased to be a resident of this State. I will inform Mr. Packard 
that I was not disappointed when in a few hours I returned and 
found the bargain closed and the deed made to Torsey. It is easily 
seen that there was no necessity for such haste if Packard believed 
I would purchase the same. If not, Torsey would take it, why 
this haste ? Was it not, when he got Dr. Torsey up to his price, 
that he feared, when I returned, Torsey would find out that I did 
not want to purchase, and had made him no offer whatever, and then 
Torsey would back out from his offer. He (Packard) understood 
what he was about. Dr. Torsey's fear that I should live too near 
him, or his desire to get the stand, prompted him to give the other 
$200. I was pleased to think how my presence there at that time 
had helped Mr. Packard to sell his stand at his own price, and to see 
the manoeuvering of Torsey. My silence is grossly misconstrued in 
Mr. Packard's affidavit 

• It is very strange that while Mary E. Chapman could not remem- 
ber to tell us, in November, 1866, scarcely a thing about what was 
or was not in their room when Louise left, or but little about the 
whole affair, that more than a year later she makes so long and 
minute a statement as appears in her affidavit. And her statement 
that she had " never received any but the kindest treatment from 
Dr. Torsey," is so much at variance with what she has heretofore 
told and written, that I can but> remind her how and why it was 
that she left that school, close at home, and went miles away, to 
Westbrook, two terms, and with what she said to induce Louise to 



26 A REJOINDER TO THE REPLY 

go with her, and afterwards wrote her, makes her present state- 
ment look incredible to us, especially when again she says, "I 
never knew nor believed that Dr. Torsey made any difference in his 
treatment of students on account of their religious opinions." This 
does not agree with what her father told us in Nov.,. 1866, and why she 
went to Westbrook. He also told me, at his barn, this sam& time, 
that he felt bad to think Mary left her alone that night, and it was 
because Mary and some other girl, or girls, were talking about Lou- 
ise, and how bad she would feel. Some of them said they should be 
afraid she would do some act of violence to herself or room-mate; 
and he said as Mary was of a nervous temperament, she was afraid to 
go back to her that night (which was the night before she left). Mary 
says in her affidavit, after telling how she had gone, " I then feared 
that she might commit suicide. This fear was caused by the fact 
that Louise had told me that once before she had attempted to com- 
mit suicide. She also added, ' If any great calamity ever happens 
to me, I think I shall commit suicide/ She told me these things 
confidentially?* And again this room-mate of Louise says, " I did 
not stay with Louise the night before she left, but had no permission 
from any teacher to- be absent from my room. On the contrary, I 
twice asked Miss Case for permission to stay with Miss Hunton that 
night j but she positively refused to grant my request, and told me 
that I must stay in my. room." Miss Case swears, "I did not advise 
Mary Chapman not to remain with her that night, and did not know 
that she did not intend to remain with her." How are these state- 
ments reconciled ? And how does it look for the room-mate, after 
what she has stated about Louise telling of intentional: suicide, and. 
against express orders to leave her alone, after the talk with other 
girls about her doing acts of violence, and remain away from her and 
give no warning to others to look: after her ? — their " dear sister," 
as she afterwards wrote me, and one that had been a sister to her, as . 
she said of Louise. And why. this long statement, so favorable to 
them and against her ? With her own admission of breaking the 
express orders of the Preceptress, she seems to be in good standing 
with' this Faculty. She may have learnt that " acquiescence in the 
opinions and decisions of the Faculty would cover a multitude of 
sins." On the other hand, Louise had learned that they would 
notice little things done by her* that they would not in others. 
While Miss Case refused her reasonable request to go up to see her 
mother — see p. 90, " Crown Won" — she obeyed. As to Miss Chap* 



ON THE KENT'S HILL TRAGEDY. 27 

man, she has betrayed the confidence of her departed friend, and as 
it looks to us, to gratify the malice of Louise's enemies. We feel 
justified in quoting from a letter of her's, written to Louise from 
Westbrook, Sept. 30th, 1864, in which she describes an offence com- 
mitted by her and other students, for which they were summoned 
before the Faculty : "They talked, but not as they do at Kent's Hill, 
far different. Their talk did not consist in threats, but he talked to 
us as well as a parent could have done. They spoke to us very 
kindly and dismissed us. They talked spendidly. I wish you could 
have heard them." 

Notwithstanding all that B. W. Harriman has stated in his affida- 
vit, and " the falsity of these extracts," pp. 90, 138-9, of my 
pamphlet, as he says, yet I affirm they are true ; and he not only 
said that, but another time, as I met him on the street, I said, " I 
am sorry that you did not go to Lewiston after her; I think if you 
had you would have found her at the Elm House and saved her." 
He said, " I think so." Why, if he remembers all about Torsey's 
asking him " if he would take a team and go in pursuit of Louise," 
as stated in his affidavit, did he not tell us that on the night of the 
29th of May, 1866, when Mrs. Greene and I stopped over night at 
his house, when he appeared to be willing to give us all the informa- 
tion he could ? He told us no such thing. And when I asked him, 
on the 26t,h day of January, 1867, why he did not go to Lewiston 
after her, he did not then say a word about Torsey's request, as 
above, or name Dr. Torsey at all, until I asked him how soon he saw 
Torsey after he returned from the depot. And when he said some 
one suggested waiting until the return train, to ascertain if she 
stopped at Lewiston, I asked him if it was Torsey, or what he did 
say. He said he "did not remember who it was or what Torsey did 
say." Yet when called upon by this Faculty or their friends, he, 
like many others, can remember everything desired so minutely that 
it is surprising to all who read their Reply. His statement that the 
" travelling at that time was very bad," is not true, as I positively know 
by going to Lewiston the next morning. And the reason that Mr. 
Chandler was so long coming here that night was because he lost his 
way after dark. I know it was first-rate travelling for that season 
of the year. And those over-strained statements are seen in this 
affidavit all through. If, as he says, she told him she was going to 
Lewiston, and the reason for going, and would return that night, 



28 A REJOINDER TO THE REPLY 

she appeared all right, why did he * ask the ticket agent for what 
place she had bought a ticket"? And why did he tell me, six days 
after that, "he thought he ought to get on to the train and go to see 
what became of her"? Torsey had written me, May 27, 1866, that 
he thought our fears were groundless as to the course Louise had 
pursued. He tells Ohestina and Miss Heed he has no fears of her, 
etc., the day she left. With all this from Torsey, Mr. Harriman 
testifies in the hearing before the Trustees, June 5, 1867, " After 
he (Torsey) found she had left under such circumstances, he urged 
that we had better start immediately after her." In the Reply he 
says, " I soon met Dr. Torsey, who asked me if I would take a team 
and go in pursuit of Louise." A wonderful fact and strong state- 
ment!- — enough to spoil the whole, in view of Torsey's own state- 
ments to us, and what he had written. I know he is wickedly 
trying to deceive the public ; and if others could know as well as I 
do the influences by which he is surrounded, they could better 
judge why it is done. 

" I, Louisa M. Greene, hereby testify and declare on oath that I 
did not tell Mr. Chandler on the morning of May 24th, 1866, at my 
house, that ' I am sorry Louise has done as she has. but hope the 
matter can be so arranged that she can go back and graduate at the 
end of the term.' [Go back in twelve days and graduate, how 
improbable.] I further say that this statement is false, as I do 
know from the fact that Chestina had already told me that Torsey 
had told her it would not be best for her to go on to the stage and 
graduate; and against his wish I knew it would be impossible for 
her to do so. But this I did say, I hoped it would come out right. 
He remarked he hoped so, but feared it would not ; said it was the 
general belief on the Hill, if she had taken money and clothing as 
represented, that she was crazy and she would make way with her- 
self. As soon as he retired Mr. Greene was called, and our worst 
fears were excited he and Chestina was off as soon as possible. 

" Louisa M. Greene." 

"Oxford, ss., May 5th, 1868. — Personally appeared the above- 
named Louisa M. Greene, and made oath that the above statement 
by her subscribed is true. 

"Before me, Jonas Greene, Justice of the Peace" 

Mr. Chandler states on oath, and asserts what I have said on page 
33 in my pamphlet, about what I said he told me. By reference to 



ON THE KENT'S HILL TRAGEDY. 29 

said page, the reader will see I there state no such thing. I do not 
connect Mr. Chandler with what I say Chestina told me. Then I 
say, ;; Mr. Chandler said," &c. An attempt of this committee to 
falsify facts through Mr. Chandler. 

This committee, a majority of whom are Methodist clergymen, 
who go about preaching and proclaiming the gospel of Christ to 
fallen man, who profess to be his followers, they would have you 
believe they embodied all that was great, good, noble and righteous 
here below — perfect patterns to follow ! In their Reply they com- 
mence by charging me with making " garbled extracts from 
anonymous letters." I brand this charge as false, and defy them to 
produce the proof. And I will here repeat what I have said in my 
book, that I have not in the same made a single extract from any 
letter marked private or confidential, notwithstanding the commit- 
tee's charge of " falsehood " against me. Yet with this charge of 
" garbled extracts * scarcely dry from their pen they do the same 
thing, by publishing extracts of Mrs. Greene's letters to Dr. Torsey, 
Why did they not publish the whole of those letters, which would 
have put a very different phase on them ? Why follow (as they would 
say) this wicked practice which they denounce in me ? 

They say, " Mr. Greene makes no small parade of his religion." 
I brand this charge as false, and will appeal to every reader of the 
" Crown Won - for the truth of the same. I have not set myself 
up as a pattern of piety, or attempted to force my opinions upon the 
public; but did say (see preface of " Crown Won ") : " ; To err is 
human.' If I am in error, after giving the facts and circumstances 
on which I base my opinion, — if the public shall decide that I have 
no cause, — I stand corrected." (See the whole of said preface.) 
They find fault with the "spirit and temper exhibited" in my book, 
If true, how much worse spirit and vindictiveness have their 
committee exhibited all through their Reply. Think of the loss 
of our child, and look at their special pleadings against me, 
judge and say, ye parents of Maine, who has the greatest cause 
to complain. I will quote from the editorial of a city paper ; 
" The spirit of Mr. Greene's pamphlet we could not endorse, 
though the natural feelings of a parent afford some palliation 
and excuse. The spirit of this reply finds no sympathy with 
us, in so far as it attempts to put the worst construction upon every 
act of the unfortunate girl. Her dying confession to her sister, 
published in both pamphlets, tells the truth, we have no doubt. JBy 



SO A REJOINDER TO THE REPLY 

that let her be judged. Those who have not sinned more may con- 
demn; but how few the number/' From an editorial of another 
paper, when speaking of those letters written by Dr. Torsey to Mr. 
Greene, after his daughter left, I make the following extract : 
" These letters are in terms so insulting to Mr. Greene, so destitute 
of common courtesy and wanting in dignity, and so deficient of 
every lineament of Christian charity and forbearance, that all we 
wish to know of a man in order to form an estimate of his true 
character is to know that he wrote those letters." 

I think they will be ashamed of their charge of falsehood against 
me in Miss Bowers's, Reed and Hunton cases. 

Also they state and put forth as a fact that " the tuition in the 
College course, while Miss Greene was in the Institution, was $6 
per term." The following copy from her bills, as paid by me, will 
nail this falsehood right here : 

Kent's Hill, Nov. 4, 1864. 
M. L. Greene — 

To Maine Wesleyan Seminary and Female College, Dr. 
To 11 weeks board ($3.25), $35.75; lamp chim- 
ney, 15; incidentals, 25, 
Tuition, $7.00; books,48.11, 



Winter Term, Feb. 24, 1865— 
Tuition, 

Incidentals, 25; books and stationery, $6.71 
Twelve weeks board, $4 per week, 

June 5, 1865 — 

Tuition, $7.00; Chemistry, $1, $8 00 

Incid., 25; books, &c, $5.90; catalogue, &c, 66, 6 81 

Board, 12 weeks, $45 ; sheets of music, 40, 45 40 



$36 15 
15 11 


$7 00 

6 96 

48 00 



$51 26 



$61 96 



$60 21 



Nov. 9, 1865— 
Tuition, $7.00; incidentals, 25, books, $5.96, $13 21, 

(She boarded herself.) 

May 25, 1866, Spring term- 
Tuition, $7.00; incidentals, 25, $7 25 
Painting, $10.00 ; materials, $4.36 ; books, &c, 

$8.80, 23 16 



$30 41 



Besides board bill, which I paid but took no receipt for. 



on the Kent's hill tragedy. 31 

This Committee speak sneeringly of the amount I have paid to 
this Seminary. If such bills are computed three times per annum, 
for five years, and a part of that time for two other girls, it will 
amount to more than they can wink out of sight. Add to this their 
begging bills for meeting house purposes; and presents to teachers, 
and various projects to coax and draw money out of those 100 to 
250 students, with incidentals, amount to a large sum yearly, which 
goes to build up that Institution, and fill the pockets of those who 
run it. Those little pickings are by the force of circumstances 
wrung out of many a student who cannot well afford to contribute, 
and would not if they could well avoid it. They are shrewd beg- 
gars and ten cent figurers up there. (See catalogue price of board.) 
Those who are there less than eleven weeks per term, ten cents addi- 
tional will be charged per week. (See tuition and incidental fees 
per term.) " Students who remain less than six weeks will be 
charged ten cents per week additional tuition." "No deduction for 
the first or last week of the term." " Books and stationery are kept 
at the Seminary, and will be sold at reasonable prices." Those rea- 
sonable terms I found to be from twenty to forty per cent, profit on 
books, stationery, slates, pencils, pens, diaries, and a hundred little 
notions which they furnish students. On those sales the profit 
amounts to no small sum yearly, which comes out of those 200 or 
more students, or those who send them there. I had in the fall of 
1865 three daughters boarding themselves ) and while the two 
youngest were sick with a fever, Mrs. Greene went there to take 
care of them, and stopped about four weeks. Being crowded for 
room, Louise watched part of the nights with the sick, and part of 
the time she took her meals and lodging at the College, for about 
two weeks, for which she paid her board while there, the usual 
price. It is known to all how inconvenient it is to take care of the 
sick away from home ; and many little extras can be procured at 
home that cannot conveniently be obtained elsewhere ; and neigh- 
borly assistance relieves much at such times. Mrs. Greene tells me 
that during the whole sickness, not one of that Faculty ever called 
to offer or know if she desired any assistance whatever, or sent the 
least thing (except a bunch of grapes), and from no source was 
there anything sent them. Whether this was because they were 
self-boarders, or their prejudice against Louise, I do not know. Al- 
though I had paid them for Louise's board about five hundred 
dollars, and had received no deduction for her absence on business, 



32 A REJOINDER TO THE REPLY 

to visit, or at camp-meetings, during this five years, they did not 
from the college send in a single article to those sick girls ; and 
once, when the girl desired some broth, and Mrs. Greene could not 
just then get it elsewhere, she sent to the College for a pound cr two 
of fresh beef, which they took pay for. Whether they will deny 
this, as they have other facts which were said to us and transpired 
before us, at the College, and in that Faculty meeting, is yet to be 
seen. They are truths. 

In 1863, when Widow Knight, of our town, went there to see 
about sending her daughter to that Institution (the daughter after- 
ward did go awhile), Louise invited her to stop over night. They 
charged Louise seventy-five cents for Mrs. Knight's horse-keeping 
that night. Mrs. Knight on finding it out refunded it. This I 
know by reference to her receipted bill for that term. And these 
are what she meant in her letter to us in 1864 — " All he has done is 
to drain father's pockets, and give me what justice demands he 
should give the meanest student " — see p. 26, " Crown Won." 

Mrs. Grreene had no one to call on to assist her through this sick- 
ness but Louise ; and she, with all her studies and school duties to 
perform, had to run round for and get the necessary things for their 
wants, assist her mother, and watch with the sick ones a part of the 
time. 

The whole tenor of this Reply, and those of this Faculty, and 
other fear or favor seeking witnesses who testify to her appearance 
and actions before she left the Hill and on her way to the depot, are 
so over-stated, and show her to be, if true, so hard and unfeeling, 
beyond all precedent, that it looks so barefaced and bad, that no rea- 
sonable person can believe them, — when those words, u Heart break- 
ing j dearly beloved, adieu!" were written just as she left the 
College — and all she wrote in those two letters — and her weeping 
appearance at the Elm House, and on the road to her couch of 
death, — are in and of themselves a complete refutation of this 
wicked, damnable testimony against her, — and with all the evidence 
given to the public of her previous good character, honesty and 
truthfulness from a child, as known to all. We, her parents, are 
not bound to .believe all that her accusers say they said and did with 
her, and what she first admitted and requested and shew them, and 
what they say she afterward and immediately denied or equivocated 
about. By her whole life we have a right to judge what she would 
be likely to say and do in that hour of trial — especially when it is 



on the Kent's hill tragedy. 33 

for the selfish interest of this whole pack to say what they do to 
attempt to clear themselves from blame. This may go down some 
people's throats; hut I will not and am not bound to take the dose. 
Torsey does not deny his stamping, his prejudice, and many other 
things. I charge him with wrong doing. He does make a sort of 
sweeping denial of the statements, and says they are " grossly 
false," as made up in my pamphlet, of fragments of different sen- 
tences as to convey false impressions. He dare not particularize 
what wrong I had done in quoting from his letters, as I have them 
to produce. He chooses to get others to testify for him, and not to 
burn his own fingers. 

And as it is attempted and labored hard in the Reply to show that 
she thought well of Torsey, and would have the public infer from 
it that he (Torsey) was particularly kind to her for a long time 
before she left, I feel compelled to state that I have positive proof 
from her writing, and other evidence, that she had good reason to 
and did dislike Torsey continually the whole of the last year and 
a-half she was under him; and that about one year before her 
departure she wrote a long letter to us, explaining anew all the 
annoyances she was receiving at his hands, her wish and desire to 
leave that school and go elsewhere, where she could be treated 
fairly. She makes mention of the fact of writing the letter, and 
what it was about, and on the whole she concluded not to send it to 
us; so we never saw the same. 

Torsey's dislike of Louise and prejudice against her are so well 
known, and are so clearly shown in my pamphlet, that he dare not, 
and it would be useless for him, to deny it. He said, when I 
charged him in that Faculty meeting with prejudice against her, 
that he and Louise had made up. Now I appeal to any candid 
mind, was not that virtually admitting his prejudice. Dr. Torse} - 
does not deny his lecture, as described in Louise's diary — see 
11 Crown Won," p. 28. The admission of this one fact should con- 
vince all that the other circumstances as described in her diary and 
other writings were enacted there as described by her. 

It is not strange to me that such numbers of certificates so favor- 
er 

able to Dr. Torsey and his associates have been worked up through 
the influence of this denomination, which I am told by one of their 
ministers is so large and powerful, reaching all over the State, that 
it would be useless for me or one family to contend with it. I 
believe that I know something about their crushing process, as felt 
C 



34 A REJOINDER TO THE REPLY 

and described by my poor dying girl to her sister in that letter 
where she says, "It will be useless to try to stem the tide; bend 
beneath it or it will break you down; say nothing of excuse or pallia- 
tion. " I am aware that this breaking- down process is going on to crush 
and break down me and my family. And for what? Because I dare 
say what 1 know and believe. But I will charge Dr. Torsey and hm 
associates? while on earth I stay, and if need be at Jehovah's Bar, with 
dealing under prejudice, which sent our child from their presence 
broken-hearted to an untimely death, when they could have saved her. 

This Committee speak of consulting counsel in regard to my 
book. If I am rightly informed, they have had an attorney 
employed for a long time in getting up the Beply. This moun- 
tain of influence has labored long and hard to produce the 
same. And the public may think that some of their language 
and phrases are more suitable for pothouse ■ politicians than for 
a choice committee, the majority of which is composed of minis- 
ters. Covert accusations against me and family, such as u libel," 
"falsehoods," "sentenced to the State Prison for the crime of per- 
jury," "depth of depravity/' "such convicted felon," "utterly 
undeserving of belief, whether under oath or not under oath,' ? 
''promulgating falsehood' 7 ! All choice language, coming from 
those who profess to love God and man ! 

But this is not the first time in the history of this denomination 
that such a crushing process has been, carried on. And, as it were, 
heaven and earth were moved to clear a hig villain who was proved 
to have been seen going to and from a haystack in a field where the 
remains of Miss Sarah M. Cornell were found the uest morning 
hung to a stake, in 1882, in the town of Tiverton, near Fall Biver 7 
Mass. I have the pamphlet of 191 pages beside me, of that trial, 
in which can be seen the mighty effort made to break down the 
deceased's written testimony against that Bev. E. K. Avery, who 
was one of the , leading clergymen of the Methodist denomination. 
Not only to destroy her written testimony, and the influence of her 
friends. The whole New England States were ransacked to obtain 
funnels and witnesses, who, it was believed T were suborned, to testify 
against her .previous character, and to clear him. No time or money 
were spared to disgrace her memory and acquit him, whom the public 
more generally believed guilty after his ^acquittal than before. We 
know something about this wicked affair, as Mrs. Greene lived at 
J&at time in the yicinity, with a leading Methodist family, where 



on the Kent's kill tragedy. 35 

she heard and saw much of their plots and schemes to clear him, 
and of their own private opinion of his guilt. Yet publicly they 
would loudly proclaim their opinion of his innocence. 

The most cruel acts on record have been committed in the name 
and under the garb of religion* And the most wic^-i. cruel and 
bloody wars recorded in ancient and modern history have been pros- 
ecuted under the same name and for the same purpose. The most 
cruel tyrants -and despots of the Old World shield themselves under 
the same garb. And a man, sect, or government which fight under 
that cloak are the most to be dreaded and feared. I think Dr. 
Torsey's prejudice is so clearly shown in my pamphlet, and his dis- 
position to annoy students who doubt the justice of his decisions 
•and do not acquiesce in his opinions, it is not necessary to pursue 
it here ; but will mention that on one occasion this desire to control 
did find vent, and was brought to bear upon one Andrew Walsh, a 
teacher in that school (a gentleman of splendid educational acquire- 
ments), for voting in 1855, as he was of different politics from the 
managers of that school. Yet he chose to exercise his right of suf- 
frage, and did go to the polls and vote, which brought down the 
displeasure of the refined and over-wise would-be rulers and judges 
of what a student or teacher on Rentes Hill should think, say or do 
while under their supervision and instruction, at this fountain of all 
morals, as they. would, have you understand. At early dawn, Sep- 
tember 11, 1855, near the church on Kent's Hill, on a tree, hung 
the form in effigy of this learned teacher, Andrew Walsh, who could 
nueutly speak a dozen or more different languages. To show their 
malignity and disgrace Mr. Walsh, there were about a half-dozen 
different devices, written placards, attached to his arms, feet and 
body, a mean and contemptible affair, all of which was published 
at that time. I have the evidence and published account, establish- 
ing all I have said in relation to this disgraceful affair, and know 
whereof I speak. For days after this act took place, no signs of 
disapprobation were seen or any means taken by Dr. Torsey to disap- 
prove or condemn the act. Not until some of the oldest students 
had drawn up a paper and were circulating it for signatures, to con- 
demn this transaction, and an account for publication had been sent 
off, did Torsey move to ferret out the actor or condemn the act. 

His forbearance and kindness to students might not be much 
helped by consulting some students- — the one who said all the notice 
he had of his expulsion was just ten minutes to pick up his things 



3& A REJOINDER TO THE REPLY 

and leave the Hill. And a young man by -the name of Lord might 
think when he claimed to be sick that pulling him out of bed and 
jerking him about his room, by Dr. Tors-ey, was no Tery kind act to 
him. 

This Committee have spent much argument, under a mistake, or 
design, as to what room I claim the wrong of entering without 
authority — see "Crown Won," p. 121, all about it. They had 
better pick their flint and try again before they make so- long an> 
argument on false premises. Yet they claim her (Louis e r s) room 
was at their disposal the same, and "did not belong to her any 
more than a man's house belongs to a child who occunies one of its 
rooms ; and the teacher has the same moral and legal right to enter 
. her room as a parent would have to enter a room in his own house 1 
occupied by a child." If this logic is true, how can they escape 
universal condemnation for not exercising parental care and protec- 
tion over those who occupy such rooms ? They find fault and would 
have the public blame me for publishing Louise's letter to her sister,. 
when the class letter (whieh is about the same) which this commit- 
tee-know that letter was written to her class, with a request for them 
to do with it as they would like for others to do in like circumstances 
to them. a Decide for me," she. says. That letter was copied and 
sent in many directions. And that committee of students did copy 
the worst sentence. " garbled extract," from the same, in their 
whitewashing report, and ask all the newspapers of the State to pub- 
lish it to the world. And when in my pamphlet I give a fair account 
of both sides, all they charge her with and their excuses for so deal-- 
ing with her, and with her own written statement, which was given 
to the public by her elass, through that letter. And to free myself 
from the liability of any unfairness, so that the public should have 
all the facts before them, I publish both letters, while they in their 
Reply publish only one — an unfair attempt by this Committee to 
mystify the fair course I have pursued in this heart-rending affair. 

Another charge they bring against me is the sale of my book at 
•* highly remunerating prices," A grave charge, in the face of the 
fact that they are selling their book for as high if not higher price, 
according to the amount of reading which it contains ; while they 
have the advantage in selling theirs, through their circuit preachers 
all over the State, as has been the case with such reports as they 
choose to send out from Kent's Hill, instead of paid agents, as in my 
case, to sell my book. 



ON THE KENT'S HILL TRAGEDY. 37 

•' Who are its authors ?" " And where was it printed ?" These 
ate the slurs thrown out against me, which I care but little about. 
But so far as its author is concerned, I will say that no attorney or 
clergyman prepared or saw a single sentence of the " Crown Won" 
before it was published. And the same is true of this Rejoinder. 
As to where it was printed, I will say it was printed at a responsible 
house, who when properly called upon will state all the facts desired, 
and where I thought the office would not be besieged by Methodist 
ministers. 

They try to make a false impression upon the reader where they 
refer to where I say she lost at the sixth term three pair#of white 
woolen stockings — all she had. Just add^ of woolen stockings. I 
clid not say but what she had cotton ones, which she always had, and 
there was -not a term when she did not have more than three pairs of 
stockings with her. It may answer this Committee's purpose to try 
to satisfy their special friends, to say that " the statements of Mr, 
and Mrs. Greene are undeserving of any credit, whether made under 
oath or not, 7 ' in relation to the amount of clothing our daughter 
had when she went to the College to board • but it will not go down 
with the mass of thinking people. They will believe that her 
mother did know what her daughter took with her, eleven weeks 
before she was sent away. She does know that, and also what she 
carried to her during those eleven weeks. And we do know that 
from Louise's ample stock of common under-clothing, which has 
been returned to us or accounted for, there was but one pair of 
drawers so old and worn out that they could not be worn. The 
remaining articles are so few that it is a heart-sickening sight to 
look at. 1 wish my readers could see them, so that they could 
appreciate what a miserable and wicked attempt there has been 
made, by drumming up outside testimony, to discredit our positive 
knowledge of what we state. 

In addition to all that Louise has written us, and what she told 
her mother in October, 1865, about her fears that she would not be 
allowed to graduate, Miss Heed says that Louise came up to where, 
she and dies, boarded, about two weeks before she left, and said (while 
speaking of the short time before the term would close, and of the 
end of her school life), " Do you see anything now that will prevent 
me from graduating? 1 ' She (Miss Reed) replied, "No, unless you 
are sick; and then you can substitute painting." Thus showing a 
fear up to the last that slue would not be permitted to graduate. 



38 A REJOINDER TO THE REPLY 

The careful reader of the "Crown Won" will see that many of 
the complaints and points I make against the whole management of 
this sad case are not answered in the Reply. And one great fact 
the public must see. That they pursued in accusing, searching 
(even to her body) and lecturing, until they broke her down, and 
sent her heart-broken away, which caused her death, without noti- 
fying her parents. He failed to fulfil his moral obligation, and 
to extend to her parental care and protection. And, without 
cause, his writing those insulting letters to me in June and July y 
1866. 'She haughty, overbearing manner in which he met me 
in Lewiston (the first time I saw him after it was known Louise 
was dead), while I, with a sad and aching heart, was there for 
her remains. Again, the 8th of November, soon after her burial, 
when Mrs. Greene and I were on the Hill to see if we could 
get any satisfaction in regard to their treatment of her who they 
then knew was lost to us forever. Before this, as many know, 
various slanderous reports had gone from the Hill, as to the cause,, 
and where she had gone — all false, as the sad result proved. After 
passing Dr. Torsey's house and going towards the College, and as I 
was putting up my horse at Mr. Adams', which was near the College,, 
where we were going, and as Mrs. Greene stood waiting on the side 
of the street, Mr. Torsey came down in a lordly manner — he was 
talking to a young lady in a lively tone — and just as he passed Mrs 
Greene, and as I was approaching her, he, as it appeared to us, to* 
show his disposition, and careless indifference for @ur presence and 
feeling, gave a loud laugh. His whole appearance and bearing was 
haughty, and as much as to say, "I care not for your presence, your 
sorrow or disappointment — it does not affect me. I am lord of all I 
survey ; from the centre all over Kent's Hill there^s Bone my right 
to dispute. You may stop or pass along.^ 

In view of all that has transpired on Rentes Hill, and tisis won- 
derful Reply, I am constrained to exelaim, ct How fearfully and won- 
derfully (self-righteous some people are) made. People often become 
so self-righteous, so tenacious of power,, of denominational pride and 
self-will, as nearly or quite to take away moral accountability; and it 
is often very difficult to determine whether their ravings and male- 
dictions proceed from a sane or an insane mind, — therefore their 
sayings should be received with great caution. ""Whether those, 
who claim the right and do use skeleton keys, use them wrongfully,, 
we do not certainly know.'' We do not know of any way how such 



ON THE KENT'S HILL TRAGEDY. 39 

articles as belts, buckles, bosom-pins, napkins, and many other arti- 
cles could disappear from Louise's trunk. We do not see how 
certain articles belonging to Louise, which were plainly marked, 
came into the possession, and why they were retained months by one 
•of her accusers. 

The public will see what any one may expect from the managers 
of this "safe and pleasant home," if they dare say that they do not 
believe them perfect in all things. The covert and mean insinua- 
tions against their old student, now she cannot answer for herself, 
their great effort to put the worst possible construction upon every 
act of her^s, getting positive affirmations from those who once were 
in doubt about things— even the rattling of a door, the late appear- 
ance at the breakfast table, are set down to Louise as vicious acts, 
while it is well known that it is an act of everyday occurrence for 
students to come to breakfast late in the College. Also their labored 
attempt to make the public believe that we are perjurers, liars, 
devoid of parental affections, mad, crazy, unfeeling, ami, proper sub- 
jects for the State Prison. Parents cannot fail to see the safety of 
that " pleasant home." 

I think every intelligent reader will agree with me when I say 
that I would as soon trust myself or property in the hands of high- 
way robbers as with a set of men who will tell me "it is not their 
object to deprive me of any portion of my wealth," and then go on 
to stigmatise my character and that of my family. I would not 
believe them if they said that " under oath or not under oath." It 
may answer the purpose of this Committee to try to put a gag into 
our mouths, and to stop us from expressing our opinion of Dr. Tor- 
sey, or any one who dealt with our girl, and call these opinions 
(as in the case of Mrs. Greene's letters to Dr. Torsey) atrocious 
libels. The public will See by dates that Dr. Torsey 's insulting let- 
ters to me were written a long time before Mrs. Greene wrote him. 
And her letters were written him on account of his insinuations 
against her and her dead girl, which if this Committee and the pub- 
lic understood as well as Dr. Torsey must, they would better account 
for some things therein written. If this Committee will publish the 
whole of Mrs. Greene's letters to Dr. Torsey, they will brand their 
own assertion as false, " that the substance of these letters are 
mostly given in Mr. Greene's book," which is not true. Knowing 
the selfishness of human nature, and the cool indifference with 
which many look upon the wrongs committed upon others, they 



40 A REJOINDER TO THE REPLY 

counsel patience and forbearance. Yet those same persons, when a 
like wrong is committed upon them, no matter who are the perpetra- 
tors, will show the greatest 'resentment, and will not care who is hit. 
Those pious savans are hard to please. They ridicule me in their 
characteristic style as representing my daughter "so nearly perfect/ 7 
and again in mock solemnity bewail my lack of " paternal kindness 
and love." For the perfectness of Louise's character I respectfully 
refer them to the letters of her classmates, the numerous letters I 
have from other students, and her townsmen. 

Contradictory testimony of Kent's Hill witnesses — 

Mrs. Daggett on oath says — " We did not go into Dr. Torsey's 
part of the house, nor did he have anything to do, directly or indi- 
rectly, with the investigation in regard to the clothing or money." 

Dr. Torsey declares on oath— "The Monday evening before Louise 
left Miss Case called on me and informed me that Miss Grreene had 
been taking articles of clothing not belonging to her, and that Mrs. 
Daggett and herself were investigating the matter. I requested her 
to do it quietly, and to say nothing to any one about the matter. I 
had also learned that Miss Greene had taken some money." Di\ 
Torsey swears that he knew about the matter and gave directions, 
while Mrs. Daggett swears that he did not. Which swears false is 
more than I can tell. And how Torsey knew about her taking 
money Monday evening, before her confession on Tuesday, is passing 
strange, if there was not preconcerted action among her accusers. 
See also Mrs. Daggett's denial of going into Dr. Torsey's part of the 
house before entering Chestina and Miss Reed's room. See Ches- 
tina's sworn statement, p. 56, " Crown Won," and her letter to me 
of March 31. 1868, where she explains how she knows she went 
into, and when they came to her room. 

Again, look at the inconsistency of B. W. Harriman's sworn state- 
ment and what Dr. Torsey wrote me. Harriman says, "When I got 
back from the depot I soon met Dr. Torsey, who asked me if I would 
take a team and go in pursuit of Louise." The day after Chestina 
and I had been on the Hill, the 26th, and found those two letters, 
which, with all other circumstances, had caused me to express great 
fears on the Hill of her destruction, and I then believed that most 
of her class and other students had the same fears, or they would 
not have shown by their tears and anxious looks, such signs of grief 
as they did. My fears must have reached Torsey's ears, as I did not 



41 

^ee him. Torsey writes me, May 27, 1866, "I do not think your 
fears of the course Louise has taken can be well founded." * * 
He three days later tells us in that Faculty meeting he had no such 
fears. He tells Miss Heed the day she left, " he had no fears of 
that." He also tells Chestina, " Oh, no; I do not fear that." See 
her affidavit on page 57, u Crown Won.'*' Now with all these asser- 
tions of Dr. Torsey, and the fact that no team was sent after Louise, 
who will believe that he asked Harriman as soon as he saw him, ■" if 
he would take a team and go in pursuit of Louise"? — especially 
when I have this same Harriman's testimony before the Trustees.. 
June 5, 1867, wherein he says of Dr. Torsey, "' After he found she 
had left under such circumstances, he urged that we had better start 
immediately after her." Which is true — Dr. Torsey asking him to 
take a team, and go, or his urging him to start immediately? Who 
believes all this, if Dr. Torsey had asked and urged, but what he 
would have gone ? — if he had been so anxious, but what some one 
would have been started immediately ? If this is not overstrained 
testimony, then I am no judge. I think they can prove most any- 
thing they choose. I have all the testimony before the Trustees' 
meeting of June 5, which is very positive, and is worth preserving. 

Our assertion of favoritism is proved true by this Committee in 
their seeming approval of Mary Chapman's disobedience of the pos- 
itive orders of the preceptress. The labored exertions of this Rev. 
J. W. Hathaway, to back Mr. Houghton down in a simple statement 
of facts, must be convincing to all what they have done to get 
others to do. 

Having obtained from a student a copy of one of Louise's exhibi- 
tion pieces, the one mentioned as lost in the "Crown Won,'"' I will 
give it to the public, and ask my readers to judge of this, and with 
all of her other productions, as published in the " Crown Won," 
whether Louise's opinions were well founded that Torsey 's prejudice 
had and would prevent her from receiving any prize or reward for 
the best composition, book-keeping, painting, or anything else, while 
she remained a student under him. She had striven hard to excel in 
some of these branches. She had been a student there, longer than 
most of the others. She had, long before she left, become satisfied 
that it was useless for her to try, after she had so well learned his 
prejudice. She has a record in her diary, saying (after her attempt 
to obtain it in book-keeping), ; 'It is no use for me to try. I shall 
never obtain a prize here. Oh, dear ! how hard I have tried. But 



42 A REJOINDER TO THE REPLY 

I did not care so much on my own account as on father's, as I think 
it would have pleased him." She was generally acknowledged to be 
as good a writer as there was on the Hill j and it was believed by 
many that justice would have given her the prize in composition, 
painting and book-keeping, during her stay there. If the prize 
pieces, etc., could be placed beside her's, the public could better 
judge whether justice was done her in those cases. I believe that 
they have a way to manage so as to have their rewards turn up 
where it will best gratify their wishes, or make to their pecuniary 
advantage — a sort of project to increase the number of students 
there. 

ANCIENT AND MODERN CHIVALRY. 

How often have I longed *to welcome back the days of ancient 
chivalry. How often through the long vista of departed years have 
I gazed back upon the first faint gleam of that chivalric spirit which 
broadened and brightened till its enthusiastic spirit lit up all Europe 
and the Holy Land ! 

Peter the Hermit, poor and untitled, who, moved almost to mad- 
ness by the injuries of his brethren at Jerusalem, raised to frenzy 
the hearts of nearly six millions of his people, and hurled them like 
the surging waves of ocean upon the shores of Palestine. 

Boemond, Prince of Tarendum, who, at the first unfurling of the 
red-cross banner dashed his armor in pieces with his battle-axe, and 
from it made crosses for his soldiery ; and with him Tancred, called 
noblest of the Christian chivalry, of whom historians have dis- 
coursed and poets sung. These are but few of the many who left 
home and heritage to die in a foreign land. Even the children, with 
scrip and staff, prepared to journey eastward. 

Like all other human institutions, chivalry presents a new aspect 
in every page of the book of history. Sometimes it is severe and 
stern, sometimes light and gay; but the qualities of valor, courtesy 
and enthusiasm shine out at every period of its existence. At the 
battle of Cressy, where Edward the Black Prince fought for his 
knightly spurs, word was brought to his father, Edward III., that 
his son, then a boy of fourteen, was surrounded on all sides by the 
enemy and needed succor. "Is he dead, or overthrown, or so 
wounded that he cannot continue to fight?" asked the king. When 
told that his son still lived, he added, " Go back to those who sent 
you, and tell them to ask no aid from me, so long as my son be in 



ON THE KENT'S HILL TRAGEDY. 43 

life. Let the boy well win his spurs, for please God, the day shall 
be his, and the honor shall rest with him." Who that has perused 
the pages which recall those deeds of valor, those romantic adven- 
tures, those tournaments, where all brave knights might try their 
prowess, and where glove, ribbon or jewel from the hand of lady 
love was the chief incentive to exertion and reward of success, — 
who, I repeat, has not regretted their departure, and mourned in his 
heart that the days of chivalry were past. Bold baron and belted 
knight have vanished from the scene of action, and their deeds are 
as the recollection of an half-forgotten dream. Yet who shall dare 
to say that the Spirit of Chivalry is not living, moving, breathing 
among us at the present time. Better than lady fair is love of coun- 
try, purer than ambition's fire is the hope of a nation's freedom. 
Nay, we do wrong to compare the two; for the first wild flashing-up 
of a rude spirit of honor, in those dark ages, was to the present life- 
or-death struggle for freedom what -the lurid glare of a meteor is to 
the calm, steady light of the sun. Our heroes are everywhere. 

By the -widening Mississippi, 
On the prairies of the West, 
Where the broad Potomac rushes, 
Union troops for battle thirst. 

They fight not for a shadow, the gay phantasm of ambition has not 
lured them from the quiet of home pleasures, but wives and mothers 
have said tu them, " Go ! for our country needs you more than I." 
God bless them ! With the echo of ringing bells and booming cau- 
non, proclaiming the glad news of victory for truth and right against 
treason and rebellion, still sounding in our ears, who will not with 
me say, All hail to Modern Chivalry ! 

Who will believe, if she had been fairly dealt with, she would not 
have received some reward of merit during those five years ? Her 
writing brings to light some things which were unknown to us while 
she was living. 

Persons invested with much power become tyranical and capri- 
cious, almost of necessity, and the self-dependence of those under 
them is much impaired by relying on favor, hypocrisy and fawning, 
playing on the weaknesses of those autocrats, and not studying, by 
patient diligence and integrity, to deserve and reap their due reward. 
However strange it may appear, yet it is a self-evident truth, that 
disobedience thrives on severe examples. A close observer cannot 



44 A REJOINDER TO THE REPLY 

fail to see that an aspect of external obedience is maintained by 
severe discipline, which veils much of the real effect from superfi- 
cial observation. The good conduct which insures the granting of 
favors, may consist in betraying a friend, or in some other way- 
crushing out or blunting that nice sense of honor which is so desira- 
ble in every person, and which should be the part of education to 
cultivate and strengthen. 

It might be as interesting to some portion of the reading public, 
who know the limited education of this H. P. Torsey, for this Com- 
mittee to explain how, where, and by what means he has received 
some of his titles, as it is for them to ridicule me for the want of a 
better education.. They perhaps might be as profitably employed to 
sustain the reputation and credit of this Institution, by explaining- 
some things which have transpired on the Hill before Louise went 
there, as they are in stigmatising her character and abusing her 
friends. If the veil could be lifted, perhaps the public might see 
that some of their managers have not made a very nice " distinction 
between vice and virtue." How far that veil will yet be attempted 
to be lifted, depends upon the action of others. Tell me, ye wise 
Committee, is there no deception, or false pretenses, for the Trustees, 
of whom you are a part, to proclaim to the world by titles that your 
Principal is possessed of every literary qualification desired, and ;ask 
the parents of this State to send their sons and daughters to an 
Institution whose head teacher and president is so deficient in the 
languages. 

This Committee have the unblushing effrontery to accuse us of a 
lack of love and care for our child. They had better cast the beam 
out of their own eye, etc. Tltey speak of love and cave. What 
love was shown Louise, and what care for her ? I refer them to her 
class letter. That .letter ought to be engraved with a pen of steel 
upon their hardened hearts — " I could have died for one friendly 
hand grasp, and thought it happiness to die." Think of this, kind 
reader — how came she to pen these, her dying words, if there was 
any friendly hand offered, kindness or sympathy shown her; neg- 
lected and cruelly deserted by those " people of God, the leading 
members of the little church at Kent's Hill." It is not surprising 
that they feel compelled to publish to the world that they are the 
"people of God" 

This Committee's unfeeliug and contemptible slur about the spot 
where Louise's remains were found, is no more than we ought to 



on the Kent's hill teagedy. . 45 

expect. Her life and character seemed to be invested with no 
sacredness in their estimation ; therefore it is not strange that they 
appear to be divested of the common feelings of humanity. This is 
in keeping with the whole treatment we have received from those 
managers of that Institution. Yet there is to be a monument 
erected, and the spot suitably dedicated, of which the public will 
have due notice, and no favors will be asked of this Committee. 

They also have spun out (in their closing special pleading) a long 
argument to try to create the belief that we are hard with and 
unfeeling towards our children. This will not take with our child- 
ren, or with those who know us. And to show the love, confidence 
and respect Louise had in and for her mother, I will quote a little 
from her diary : " January 20, 1866 — Such a nice old clay with my 
' mother; had her all to myself this P. M., only the girls kept run- 
ning in." "21st — Mother was quite sick- all last night. My 
precious mother ! All that I have and all that I am, under G-od, I 
owe to my mother. Even Sarah spoke of the great change in her 
since G. H. died. And I am powerless to help." " March 27, 1866 
— Coming up from the College, found Ches. and mother had come." 
" 28th — I have devoted this clay to my mother — a pleasant duty." 
" 29th — Came from the Packard house by seven, just before mother 
started for home. The day be^an with wind and snow, but ended in 
a drenching rain. Did I do wrong to detain her yesterday?" Will 
the public believe that she in her right mind would have feared to 
have gone to that mother whom she always spoke so kindly of and 
loved so dearly. That mother who Louise knew loved her most ten- 
derly, and would have done anything in her power to have assisted 
her under any and all circumstances. 

This Committee, in the Reply, have endeavored to create the 
belief that Louise had not lost articles of clothing : that she had 
not complained of losing any. Yet they are contradicted by their 
own witnesses. Miss Case says, " I think she said she took the 
clothing from necessity, as all her's had been lost, and intended to 
restore it at the close of the term." None who should see what was 
left and returned to us, would doubt the " necessity." Mr. Daggett 
testifies before the Trustees, June 5, 1867 (I have a copy of all that 
testimony), and among other things says, " She said she had also 
lost articles of clothing, and had endeavored to keep her clothing- 
good." Then is it true, as stated in the Reply, that Louise made no 
complaint of losing clothing ? Let those " people of God, the lead- 



46 A REJOINDER TO THE REPLY 

ing members of the little church at Kent's Hill," tell me who took 
the money, the postage stamps, books and clothing, from Louise, 
before they further pursue and testify to disgrace her memory, and 
try to break down all who dare to defend her„ 

I think it very strange that Miss Huntington should, as she states 
in her affidavit, after locking herself into her room, take out her key 
and hang it up in her room. Now for what reason would she do 
that, if she desired to be alone and quiet while, as she says, she was 
studying ? She would simply take they key inside, turn it, and let- 
it remain in the door, as it would not be but a short time before she 
would want to open it again ; and it looks very strange when any 
one knocked at her door that she should not answer or go to the 
door. How did she know but it was some of the teachers ? And 
who, if knocking at a door in that manner, would stand a minute or 
two before they would knock again ? The most usual course would 
o be timmediately repeat the raps, and the occupant would reply in 
some way. It is also strange that she makes no allusion to thi§i to 
Louise, until she is dead and could make no answer for herself. 
And it is still more strange that at this late day she can so distinctly 
remember, in the absence of her room-mate, what she had done with 
her key. " My room-mate's key was also hanging up in my room.'' 
A little too positive, I should think. 

As I have shown, p. 83, V Crown Won," that Miss Church was 
not accusing any one, I will give here an extract from a letter of 
her's to me of August, 18(37, in which she* says : " I communicated 
my suspicion to none but my sister and one other, till requested to 
do so by my superiors." She also says in this letter she lost the 
money " Thursday evening or Friday morning." Here is another 
strong proof that some of her superiors (she does not say who) were 
seeking, requesting some, to implicate this old student, who had but 
a few more days to remain with them • and as Miss Church writes 
me she went home Tuesday morning, this request of her superiors 
must have been made before the investigation and the searching of 
Louise things, as her confession was that day after Miss Church had 
gone. 

In most all of the statements and affidavits of students, Mr. and 
Mrs. Daggett, in the u Reply," there are admissions of mixing and 
losing of more or less articles of clothing, and that Louise said she 
took them from necessity, and intended to return them when she 
found her's, or leave them at the end of the term. 



on the Kent's hill tbagedy. 47 

In reply to Mira I. Reed's recantation affidavit, and with what she 
has declared was said at my house, and what was said and done at 
Readfield when she gave me her affidavit — how she could and why 
she did make this statement, is more than I can tell. I shall 
make my statement just how ^this affidavit of her's was given 
to me, and all the material facts connected therewith, then produce 
the evidence I have to corroborate the same, and with the circum- 
stances and means for remembering the facts, and let the people 
judge who tells the truth. In the fall of 1866 I learned by reports 
that Miss Reed had made some statements in regard to Louise leav- 
ing, and particularly in regard to Torsey's admissions as to that 
conversation he had with Louise, and being desirous to get the facts 
in this sad case, I wrote her at Roxbury. She soon after called at 
my house and explained, and said, "As she was coming down so 
soon, she thought she would call and tell me, as she had not time to 
answer my letter (or words to that effect). When she, her brother, 
my wife and other members of my family, were seated, I asked her 
to tell me all about what Torsey said and did on the day Louise left. 
Seating myself at a table, with pencil and paper, I carefully took 
down her statement, which was nearly verbatim as it appeared in 
my pamphlet. She gave the statement freely, without hesitation, in 
full, and did not appear as though she desired to hold back any- 
thing, and she never asked a single question what I intended to do 
with it. I had no occasion to repeat my questions or to urge her in 
the least. And it is very remarkable, if as she says in the Reply, 
•• I did not answer his letter, because I did not wish him to have any 
writing signed by me, I fearing that he might use it against the 
Institution at Kent's Hill," that she of her own accord should 
call here and tell us so freely what she did. Had she written she 
need have stated only the facts. And here is where the trouble is, 
the facts are against Torsey, hence their great efforts to suppress or 
break them down. She gave me no occasion for, nor did I tell her, 
" You need not fear; this will not be used to injure you." She 
again says I said, " This is a matter of great interest to us, and we 
wish to know all about this, simply for our own satisfaction." The 
former part of this sentence is correct (and who would not want 
to ?) ; but I positively deny saying the latter, " Simply for our own 
satisfaction." When she got through, I said, " If you could stop I 
should like to rewrite this with pen and ink, and get you to sign it." 
But knowing they were in a hurry, and they could not well do so, I 



48 A REJOINDER TO THE REPLY 

only mentioned it. They said they could not stop any longer, a^ 
they intended to go through that night. Having received several 
letters from Miss Reed, speaking well of Louise's character and 
standing on the Hill, I wrote in the first part of her affidavit a short 
recommendation and explanation. % And then from the minutes I 
had taken at my house, wrote out the affidavit, leaving several blank 
spaces where I thought she might wish to explain further, or where 
I thought I might not fully understand how she meant to state or 
explain. Soon after she was at our house, when I took those min- 
utes, it came to us that she had told other persons in our town, 
where she had visited, about the same she had told us. I remarked 
to Mrs. Greene that if she had told others what she had us, it would 
in some way reach Torsey's ears at Kent's Hill, and Miss Reed 
would fyave to suffer for it. He would in some way annoy her, or 
would get her to recant her statements about his admissions to her, 
what he said to Louise, and she (Louise) desired to have done. He 
would get her pledged by words or by writing so that we could not 
obtain the facts. I knew this man so well that it would not do to 
have him know that Miss Reed had informed or giveu me the facts 
as she did at my house. This is why and the only reason that I was 
so cautious about having it known in Readfield, what my business 
was when I went there and obtained that affidavit. And why I did 
not have that writing finished and read in the presence of the Skol- 
field family, in the kitchen, was for fear that some neighbor or 
student from the Hill would drop in upon us, and report to Torsey, 
or to some of the parties interested on the Hill. For the same 
reason I did not request the Justice before whom she appeared to 
make oath, to read it, or to inform him of its contents, was because 
he was a stranger to me, and might disclose the same, as I then 
thought it would be to her great injury to have it known while she 
was a student there. 

On Saturday, January 26th, 1867, I went to Kent's Hill with my 
team, and called on Miss Reed and asked her if she would like to 
take a ride with me, as I desired to talk with her. And as she, her 
brother, and Miss Springer, were boarding themselves, it brought 
the matter so fresh to my mind, when I used to go there when my 
girls were there, with the long struggle Louise had with books and 
tutors there, and the wicked management with her, without notice 
to me, and her final destruction. And those students, referring to 
those things, and of my coming with and after her during those five 



on the rent's hill tragedy. 49 

years. It was not strange that I did at the mention of those things 
shed tears. Those tears ought not to make against me, nor be con- 
strued as an effort to induce her to go with me (if she so intended it), 
in the Reply; it is wicked beyond measure. She showed no signs of 
holding back and not going. I said, as it was Saturday (no school) 
and work-day with them, " Perhaps you have so much work to do 
you cannot go.'' She said, " We have not much to do." Miss 
Springer gave her to understand she could do the work, and in a 
very short time she was ready to go. As we left I said to Miss 
Springer, "We shall not return till after dinner." I had told Mr. 
Skofield that if she came with me, to give us the sitting-room, with 
a fire in it, for the reason before explained. I had informed him for 
what I was going after her, and said she might not come. I think 
there was something said to her by me when I asked her to take a 
ride, about going as far as the Corner. After arriving at Mr. Sko- 
field's and having the horse put into the barn, as I intended to stop 
there until alPter dinner, and after getting seated I told her what I 
wanted, and went on to read what I had written, and said, " If I 
have not got it written as you understand it you will tell me, and I 
will make it as it should be." Part of those blank spaces was filled 
and part was not. Some of them were ' crowded and some partly 
filled, just as her statement and explanations required. They 
remain so to-day. The filling out was done with very pale, poor, — 
what I call frozen ink. It bothered me to write with it very much; 
before I finished I warmed it quite warm and shook it up, and it 
did a little better toward the last. When I had finished reading 
and filling it I re-read it through; then gave it to her to read, and 
told her I wanted her to sign it, and go before a Justice and make 
oath to it. As she was reading it to herself, and when I thought 
she had got to those largest filled-up places, and thinking the pale 
ink and some close filling up would bother her to read it, I asked 
her if she could read it all, and said, '• If you cannot make it all 
out I will assist you." She said she could read it all ; and when 
she had finished reading it she went to the table and signed it, with 
the same ink and pen that I had filled it out. I did not hurry her. 
We took dinner there, and talked some time with the family ; then 
took her to the Corner, before Justice Bean, who asked her some 
questions, administered the oath and made the affidavit. As we left 
the office, Miss Eeed said to me, if I was not in a hurry, or could 
wait, she would like to see her friend (aunt, I think she said), a 
D 



50 A REJOINDER TO THE REPLY 

while. I told her I could wait, and Would take her there. She 
said, " It is but a little distance, and I will walk." I said, " Very 
well," and unhitched my horse, led him to her friend's house, 
hitched him, and went in ; stopped as long as she seemed desirous 
to stop — about half an hour, I should judge. I then took her back 
to the Hill. She did not, at my house or at Readfield, ask me what 
I wanted this for, or what I was going to do with it, or in any way 
during the whole transaction ask a single favor or assurance from me 
as to keeping it from the parties interested or the public. I thought 
very strange of it at the time. I did once, and only once, of my 
own accord, say to her that, " Nothing you have said or done shall 
be known while you are a student there." I was not in great haste 
while at Mr. Skofield's, and did not read the certificate rapidly. She 
did have time tp read it as long and as thoroughly as she chose, and 
the writing is a plain hand, except some of the filling, which was 
there done with that pale ink, as the original will show. The vacant 
spaces she speaks of can now be seen on the same. I did not tell 
her " I left these spaces for the purpose of inserting other things 
afterwards." If I had inserted other things, as she insinuates, those 
blank spaces would be filled, as also the bottom line, above her sig- 
nature, would be filled, where there is more than one whole line 
above her signature now blank. I never told her, " I will put this 
document in better language. " But I did say to her, about the time 
she was to sign it, I wished I had time to re-write it and put it in 
better shape (meaning, of course, before it was signed and sworn 
to, it should be done, if at all). She must have so understood it at 
that time. She did tell us at our house that Miss Bowers said, 
" Won't you go and see Dr. Torsey; I think you will do best with 
him." Could not Miss Bowers have gone to Dr. Torsey as well as 
Miss Reed. There was some reason why she did not besides that 
given by Miss Heed. She did say, and I took down at our house 
her exact words, that Dr. Torsey, " in that first conversation in our 
room told us that he had never suspected Louise of any dishonesty 
in that direction." 

All the main points in her affidavit, in " Crown Won," were 
taken down by me at our house, as she admits in the Reply ; and 
the public will judge whether I, from my notes taken down at the 
time, have not the means of knowing what she did tell us better 
than she and her brother have from recollection one year afterwards, 
as stated in said Reply. I did not ask her to say anything against 



ON THE KENT'S HILL TRAGEDY. 



51 



Dr. Torsey, or the school. I only asked her to state what she knew 
— the facts — without any reference as to who it would hurt or 
please. She gave me what 1 then and do now believe was true. 
There are some things Miss Reed did state at our house not given in 
the "CrowaWon," which I will here state. Mrs. Greene and I 
recollect them well. One was when T— told Ches. and I, and when 
I cited her going in her poorest clothing. He said that looked like 
going into the factory to work, or running away. She (Miss Reed) 
said " that made her mad clear through." She said two students 
went into Louise's room the night before she left, after Mary Chap- 
man had left her. and stopped awhile ; and when they were about to 
leave, Louise said, "Girls, don't leave me alone/' Mira said that 
seemed the hardest of all. She said she ought not to have been left 
alone, and if she had known it she should have gone to her if it had 
been in the middle of the night. She also spoke of the carelessness 
of students about clothing, and related incidents. Said one time 
Mary Chapman went down to a party, or public gathering, at the 
Corner. She by mistake wore another student's cloak. It was there 
lost, and Mary's father had to pay for it. Also, she said a lady stu- 
dent, told Miss Robinson that she had found a handherchief in her 
possession with another student's name marked on it, and they might 
accuse her of stealing it, as they did Louise. She said she lost, after 
Louise had left, a large music book in the College building, from the 
room where she practised. Mrs. Greene did not say in that conver- 
sation at our house, when I took Miss Reed's testimony down — and 
she utterly denies of saying, " For we already know enough against 
them back of this, without your testimony." The absurdity of this 
statement is seen at once, as we were then trying to get more inform- 
ation. She also denies saying " You need n't try to shield him," for 
we did not think they were trying to, and she had no occasion to say 
that. Miss Reed did say, after all she had told us, and as she was 
about leaving the house, " I do not wish to say anything that will hurt 
Dr. Torsey or the Institution." This was in the fall of 1866, and in 
January, 1867. She gave me her affidavit (after she had graduated 
from the Seminary, and was no longer a student there). I received 
in reply to one I had written her, a letter from which I make the 
following extracts : 

" Belgrade, July 4, 1867. 
" I do not know as Dr. Torsey knew that you wrote me before, but 



52 A REJOINDER TO THE REPLY 

some were condemning me, thinking I was coming out against the 
Institution, and I had not said anything against it. You know that I 
never did to you. Ben. Harrirnan said he thought I was in league 
with you, informing you of all their proceedings, and injuring the 
Institution all I could. I have always been a friend to Louise, but 
I am not to judge those who dealt with her, and never have. There 
were some girls in my room when I received your letter, and I spoke, 
of it to them. Your letter proved that I was not doing more than I 
pretended. I have been in a bad place, and have kept as quiet as 
possible ; but I did not escape the tongues of slanderers. My neu- 
trality only excited suspicion. That letter you wrote me made my case 
clear, and of course could not injure you. I do not wish to say or do 
anything to injure the Institution, and do not think you wish me 
to. Those questions you asked me, and answers you have written 
down are only the plain facts." 

The reader will see although Torsey did not know of her 
affidavit, yet a suspicion had sprung up against her (hence his 
watching for and obtaining my letter), and she felt a pressure or 
prejudice before she graduated. What she " was pretending" to do 
I dp not know, when she says, "I have been in a bad place," etc., 
' ; I*did not escape the tongues of slandftrers." Who they were she 
does not fully say, but clearly indicates one of them. One question 
— What were their "proceedings" on the Hill, for which they would 
be justified, or choose, to annoy or slander any student for informing 
any person they chose. (Kent's Hill fear, favoritism or mental 
insubordination, I would call it.) Her "neutrality" would not 
answer their purpose ; they were not willing for her to state facts of 
what she knew. " I do not wish to say or do anything to injure the 
Institution, and do not think you wish me to." Then she assured me. 
long before I published my book, "Those questions asked me and 
answers you have written down are only the facts." After this, 
what was my surprise to see in the Reply her affidavit. The public- 
can judge when the evidence is belore them : 

"This, is to certify that on the 28th of November, 1866, at our 
house in Peru, Mira I. Reed, of Roxbury, in conversing about the 
sad affair — of what she knew about M. Louise Greene leaving Kent's- 
Hill, and her subsequent death, told in substance the same as 



ON THE KENT'S HILL TRAGEDY. 53 

appeared in her affidavit in the pamphlet entitled * Crown Won,' 
and I would so testify under oath. 

" Eveline A. Knight, aged 22 years. 
" Peru, Dec. 26, 1867." 

Knowing that Miss Reed and her brother came direct from S. 
R. Newell, Esq., when they called on us in 18(j6, when she gave me 
her statement; — Mr. Newell then lived in town, but now is Regis- 
ter of Deeds of this eounty, and resides at Paris; — not having seen 
him or any member of his family since December last, I wrote him 
to know if he and Miss Gammon would give me a sworn statement 
of what Miss Reed did state at his house in regard to what appears 
in her affidavit in the " Crown Won." From each I received the 
following statements. This is all Mr. Newell has in any way to do 
with this Rejoinder: 

Paris, April 20, 1868. 
• Friend Greene, — Your request was duly received, but such 
has been the press of business that I have been unable to give it 
that thought and attention which I desired before answering you. 
In the present condition and aspect of the case I feel extremely 
reluctant at giving any affidavit to be connected with the matter as 
proposed. When honorable senators come before the public with 
statements under oath concerning what their own eyes have seen and 
what their ears have heard, and learned and reverend D. D.s step 
forward and swear as plumply that such statements are false ; when 
reverend gentlemen and learned professors write private letters, and 
then in affidavits before the public swear to the reverse of statements 
therein made; when intelligent and fair- famed deponents make oath 
to statements one day and the next swear that their testimony was 
false, or was never made ; when deponents complain to the public 
that they have been duped or tearfully persuaded to swear to what is 
false ; — there is reason to fear that the public will withhold all con- 
fidence in affidavits connected with any matter that seemingly has 
such a tendency to demoralize and corrupt the morals of the parties 
interested therein. The public perhaps, to-day, would award me a 
fair reputation for truth and veracity, but should I volunteer an affi- 
davit, the 'pros' or ' cons' might reasonably raise a question, after 
the adverse statements that have appeared, which I have no disposi- 



*r. 



54 A REJOINDER TO THE REPLY 

tion to discuss nor the folly to covet. As to what Miss Reed said at 
my house in the fall of 1866, I do not think I could from memory 
give her statement with accuracy, in her language, as she expressed 
herself at the time. We had at that time quite a conversation 
respecting the case of Louise, all my family taking part in the 
talk. Many of the statements made by Miss lieed were in sub- 
stance, though perhaps not in the same language, as they appear in 
your book. I recollect of her mentioning her conversation with Mr. 
Harriman relative to going after Louise, and of her wishes and anxi- 
ety in that matter — of the expressed fears and feelings of Mr.. 
Harriman — of the excitement on the Hill — of the delay — and 
her own feelings of impatience, etc.; but what language she used to 
express these ideas I cannot remember to quote. I do not think she 
did use the terms ' terrible suspense/ ' terrible commotion,' ' terri- 
ble excitement/ etc., etc. These expressions, I presume, were the 
language of whoever wrote out the affidavit for her to sign. It is 
not often that deponents write their own depositions. Hence it it 
the case that illiterate people and extremely broken in language are 
made the authors of flowing words, elegant expressions, of which in 
ordinary communications they might well deny the paternity. I 
noticed in the ' Reply/ that the affidavits, as they purport to be. 
have the stamp of the same hand on most of them ; but this does 
not justify those who signed them in denying the paternity, because 
their own language is not used, after they have signed them and 
made oath to their truth. I do not recollect that Miss Reed censured 
Dr. Torsey in the conversation alluded to, but rather seemed to 
regret that the condition of the case and facts were such as to make 
him unavoidably subject to censure. When speaking of the preju- 
dice against Louise, I asked her if it was known on the Hill that Dr. 
Torsey was prejudiced, to which she replied in the affirmative, and 
said it was unfortunate for him that it was known. I came to the 
conclusion, after the conversation with Miss Reed, that she did not 
hold that the Faculty or Dr. Torsey were culpable for or guilty of an 
intentional wrong, but for an unfortunate mistake, which resulted in 
a fatal wrong to Louise. When I remarked in substance that a seri- 
ous or cruel wrong had been done Louise, Mr. Stillman A. Reed 
replied, ' That is what ice think.' I inferred by that ice he meant to 
include his sister, whose views, I suppose, he understood. If Miss 
Reed on reflection wishes to say that her first affidavit was false, and 
that she there uttered untruths, I cannot see the utility of your 



!&•* 



on the Kent's hill tragedy. 55 

wishing for affidavits to prove that she had uttered the same things in 
private conversation. As to her making the statement in the affidavit 
in your book, you need go no further than to her last affidavit in the 
* Reply ' for testimony to prove that she did make them. She says 
Mr. Greene said, ' This is a matter of great interest to us, and we 
wish to know all about this simply for our own satisfaction.' 'After 
this explanation from them, I proceeded to answer their questions as 
w°ll as I kneiv; but they gave me no intimation that these answers 
would be printed or made public ; nor did I ever intend or" suppose 
that they would be, till after the publication of Greene's pamphlet' 
(p. 30 of Reply). It seems after the publication of your pamphlet 
She knew 'they' had been printed and made public. They — what? 
Why the very answers that she gave you, as she says, she supposed, 
for your 'own' personal and private ' satisfaction. .' She saw them 
in print; and knew them ; and they were answers made ' as well as 
she knew.' From what she says about noticing that you were taking 
her answer in writing, and her hesitating about giving them in 'this 
form,' till after your explanation, I infer that these answers formed 
the basis of her affidavit, which, being arranged in form, .she signed, 
and to which she made oath. I think this must be so, for these 
answers to which she alludes I believe appear in no other place in 
your pamphlet, except in her affidavit. She says you wrote her a 
letter asking questions about Louise and the manner of her leaving 
the Hill ; but she says, ' By the advice of my friends at home I did 
not answer his letter, because I did not wish him to have any writ- 
ing signed by me, I fearing that he might use it against the Institu. 
tion at Kent's Hill.' Why did she hesitate to write, and give you 
simple and truthful answers ? If she thought the truth was not 
against the Institution, why did she fear you would use her answers 
against it ? She could scarcely use plainer language than she has in 
this part of her affidavit, to say or impress the idea that if she wrote 
you the truth it would be against the Institution, and you might 
thus use it. I am sorry that Miss Reed, by her attempt to retract 
from her former statement, finds herself placed before the public in 
so unenviable a position. It is true, both yourself and the authors 
of the ' Reply' have endorsed her moral worth, high standing, and 
veracity • but she can scarcely afford to be made the recipient of 
such puffs and fawning at the risk of public ridicule. 

"After respectfully declining putting forth an affidavit in this 
matter, I will close this communication by saying that if you hav 



«-•» 



56 A REJOINDER TO THE REPLY 

been guilty of using undue influence and tearful entreaties, as she 
represents, to induce Miss Reed to swear to a falsehood, or if the 
parties interested at Kent's Hill have, by letters of persuasion, emis- 
saries or attorneys sent to her, exercised a similar influence over her 
feelings, to obtain a retraction of her former statement, at the 
expense of her truthfulness and reputation, the guilty party ought 
to share the larger portion of public condemnation, rather than this 
unwary young lady, who doubtless would gladly have avoided any 
connection with the affair. 

" Very respectfully yours, 

u Sumner R. Newell." 

"Paris, April 20, 1868. 
"Jonas Greene, Esq., — Dear Sir, — After the exhibition of the 
extreme uncertainty of the truth of affidavits, as recently made in 
certain pamphlets now in circulation, I feel that public confidence 
must be shaken, and not much reliance placed on such productions.. 
I must therefore decline making an affidavit of what I heard Miss 
M. I. Reed say, in the fall of 1866, concerning your daughter Lou- 
ise leaving Kent's Hill, as you have requested. It would be difficult 
for me, after the time that has elapsed, to quote from recollection 
many of her expressions, or much of the language made use of at 
that time. I find by recent observation that when people undertake 
to give the statements of others, it is very safe to accuse them of 
falsehood, if they fail in giving the same language, although they 
convey the same idea. I well recollect that Miss Reed — in the fall 
of 1866, I think it was November — gave me, and others at the 
same time, a partial history of that affair. I do not think she went 
.minutely into the matter, to tell all she knew about it ; but talked 
freely, and answered all inquiries freely — not censuring or blaming 
any one. I have read her affidavit in your pamphlet, and I find 
many of the ideas therein were the same she advanced in the con- 
versation to which I allude. I think she did not go into all the 
details in the matter at that time, as she did in her affidavit. She 
related the conversation with the stage-driver, Mr. H., very much as 
it appears in her affidavit ; and she also spoke of her feelings, fears 
and wishes, and of her impatience at the delay, of the excitement on 
the Hill; and giving or conveying the same idea as one might gather 
by reading her affidavit ; but I cannot say what the phraseology of 
her language was in giving expression to those ideas. I do not 



£t* J 



ON THE KENT'S HILL TRAGEDY. 57 

recollect that she repeated or said anything about the conversation 
she had with Dr. Torsey; but / do remember that she said in sub- 
stance that it was known on the Hill that he was prejudiced against 
Louise, and that it was unfortunate for him that it was known. If 
Miss Reed has made statements at variance with each other and with 
facts, to please you, or to shield and please any other party, I am 
sorry for her. Yours, &c, 

S. P. Gammon. 

T, Robert G-. Skofield, -of Readfield, in the County of Kennebec, 
of lawful age, upon oath make affidavit and say, that on the 26th 
day of January. 1867, Mr. Jonas Greene, of Peru, and Miss Mira I. 
Reed, of Roxbury, came to my house at Kent's Hill. Mr. Greene 
came there from Augusta on the evening of the 25th, and stopped 
during the night On the morning of the 26th he asked myself and 
wife if he could have a room, as he wished to have some conversa- 
tion with Miss Reed in relation to his daughter Louise. We told 
him he could have a room as he desired ; and about half past nine 
o'clock in the morning he went with his team to the Eaton House, 
near the College buildings, and about ten o'clock returned with Miss 
Reed. They stopped at my house to dinner, and were there some 
three hours or more. While there I heard no expression nor did I 
see any indication of haste on the part of either of them. They 
were in conversation together some two hours before dinner; but 
what their conversation was I do not know, as T was not in the room 
with them. They dined with myself and family,, ami remained some 
half an hour at my house after dinner. Mr. Greene informed me at 
this time that Miss Reed was going to the Corner with him, to make 
oath to a statement made by her in relation to his daughter Louise, 
and when they left they went in that direction. 

Robert G. Skofield. 

State op Maine. — Kennebec, ss. — April 2±th, 1S68. — Then 
the above-named Robert G. Skofield personally appeared and made 
oath to the foregoing statement by him subscribed. 

•' Before me, Emery 0. Bean, Justice of the Peace." 

" I, Sybil M. Skofield, of Readfield, in the County of Kennebec, 
of lawful age, on oath depose and say, that Mr. Jonas Greene, of 
Peru, came to our house at Kent's Hill the night of the 25th of 



58 A REJOINDER TO THE REPLY 

January, 1867. That on the morning of the 26th of January he 
asked if he could have a room for the purpose of having some con- 
versation with Miss Mira I. Reed, of Roxbury. Myself and husband, 
Robert G. Skofield, told him he could; and about half past nine 
o'clock that morning he went with his horse and sleigh to the Eaton 
House, about one half-mile from our place, and immediately returned 
with Miss Reed. He came into the house with her and introduced 
her to me. They remained until after dinner, and were there three 
hours or more. After they had been in the house a short time, Mr. 
Greene asked me for pen and ink. 1 told him the ink had been 
frozen, and was rather pale. He replied that it would answer his* 
purpose. They occupied a room adjoining and opening into the one 
where I was, and I heard Mr. Greene and Miss Reed in conversa- 
tion. I. saw Mr. Greene writing at the table where he and Miss 
Reed sat, and he was reading from a written* paper and asking her 
questions. When. I went into the room to ask them to dinner, they 
were near the table where he had been writing, and Miss Reed had 
a written paper in her hand which she appeared to be reading. Im- 
mediately after this Mr. Greene came into the room where the dinner 
table was set, and said we need not delay dinner for them ; but we 
did wait some half an hour, and they then dined with myself and 
family. After dinner Mr. Greene went out of the house, and Miss 
Reed and myself went into the room adjoining the dining-room, 
where they had been before dinner. On the table was a written 
paper, which Miss Reed took and began to read. Soon after this, 
Mr. Greene came intu the room and said to Miss Reed, ' Can you 
read it?' She replied, 'Yes; I thought I would look it over,' or 
' read it over again.' I will not be positive whether she said ' look 
it over again,' or 'read it over it again.' It was one of these two 
expressions. I left the room soon after this, and when I left she was 
still reading this paper. They went from our house about half-an- 
hour after dinner. While Miss Reed was putting on her clothing to 
leave, I said to her I wished to send some apples to a friend of mine 
rooming at the same house with her. She replied that she was not 
then going back to the house, but was going to the Corner. Before 
dinner I heard Mr. Greene reading to Miss Reed, from a written 
paper. This reading and the conversation between them I could 
have heard had I chosen to listen. His reading was not rapid, nor 
was the conversation between them in a low tone of voice. There 
were no expressions or acts on the part of Mr. Greene or Miss Reed 



ON THE KENT'S HILL TRAGEDY. 59 

indicating any haste or any conceaalment of the purpose for which 
they were there. Sibyl M. Skofield.'' 

State of Maine. — Kennebec sir, April 24, 1868. — Then the 
above-named Sibyl M. Skofield personally appeired and made oath 
to the truth of the foregoing statement, by her subscribed. 

Before me, Emery 0. Bean, Justice of the Peace. 

Readfield, April 21, 1668. 
Hon. J. Greene, — Dear Sir, — In reply to your inquiry, I 
will say, when you and Miss Reed came to my office, the 26th of 
Jauuary, 1867, you were both entire strangers to me, and I had no 
knowledge of the contents of the paper signed and sworn to by Miss 
Reed. Immediately after you came into the office, you said to me 
you wished me to administer an oath to the young lady, remarking 
that you supposed it was not necessary for me to know the contents 
of the affidavit. I replied it was not. You then handed me a writ- 
ten statement, signed by Mira I. Reed. I thereupon asked Miss 
Reed if she signed the paper which I held in my hand. Her reply 
was—" I did." I further asked her if she knew its contents. She 
said she did. I then administered the oath — made a certificate there- 
of on the paper signed by her, and passed the same to you. 

Yery respectfully yours, 

Emery 0. Bean. 

Winthrop, April 20, 1868. 

Hon. Jonas Greens, — A lady of truthful and religious charac- 
ter, states that last summer, before your " Crown Won " was -pub- 
lished, Mira I. Reed, of Roxbury. in repeated conversations, fully 
committed herself to her affidavit as it afterwards appeared in your 
pamphlet; so that, upon reading it, she remarked upon the perfect 
agreement between her certified and oral statement. This lady de- 
clines certifying in the case, from personal and private considerations, 
which may be appreciated by the public. 

You may use this statement as you may deem proper, omitting to 
notice any other facts in the case of which you may have knowl- 
edge. M. B. Sears. 

I, Wilioby R. Knapp, of the town of Byron, being of lawful age, 
do depose and say that, on or about the last of October, 1867, I 
called at Stillmau A. Reed's, in the town of Roxbury, and there saw 



60 A REJOINDER TO THE REPLY 

Mira L Reed, who had previously told me that she wanted one of the 
pamphlets, " Crown Won." Said she wanted to see if the affidavit 
of her's in the book was correct. She said if what she had been 
told was in the affidavit in the book it was not correct. I told her 
that I had some of the pamphlets, and if she wanted one, I would 
send one down to her. She then told me that she had borrowed the 
book and read it. I said, how did you find your statement ? She 
replied, " about as I expected." (She finding no fault.) 

W. R. Knapp. 

February 9, 1868. 

Oxford, ss. — March 9, 1868. — Personally appeared the above 
named Wm R. Knapp, and made oath that the above statement by 
him subscribed is true. 

M Before me, Wm. Woodsum, Jr., Trial Justice. 

By all [ have shown, it does not appear that Miss Reed had much 
reason to complain of me, or that she was dissatisfied with her affida- 
vit in the " Crown Won " to any great extent, up to the middle of 
November, 1867. Why and by what means she was then induced to 
write Dr. Torsey and say that she would write me about her giving 
me that affidavit, and said the answer she received she would send to 
him. 

■ It may not be known to Miss R. that her letter'to Br. T. was read 
publicly by Benj. W. Harriman, in the Post-office, November 27, 
1867, on Kent's Hill. 

In accordance with this promise which she gave Dr. T., I suppose 
I received the following letter from her : 

" Roxbury, Me., Nov. 18, 1867. 
" Mr. Greene, — When I gave you my statement, which I find pub- 
lished in your book, you Spoke of putting it in better language ; and 
are you sure, in so doing, you have given all the facts as they are in 
the original ? 

" Please give me an answer by return mail. 

" Yours in haste, 

" Mira I. Reed." 

To this letter I immediately replied, in substance, — Miss Reed : 
At the time you gave me your affidavit or statement, when I spoke 
of putting it in better shape, I meant it should have been done, if at 



ON THE KENT'S HILL TRAGEDY. 61 

all. before you signed and made oath to it. It is copied word for 
word into my book, as given and read by you, as the original will 
show; and on your seeing the same you will be satisfied. 

Although there seems to have been some plotting — which was then 
unknown to me— between them, to see if they could not implicate 
me in some wrong, they seem to be caught in their own trap. Whether 
my answer was sent to Dr. T. or not, I am not informed, and there is 
no reference made to it in the " Reply." 

With all I have shown and proved in regard to Miss Bowers, Miss 
Reed and Miss Hunton's charges and statements against me, I am 
content for the public to judge, why and how they were obtained, 
and who are most to blame — these young ladies or those older and 
more wicked heads, who, I believe, have assisted them. 

Whether all that which purports to be affidavits in the Reply, are 
really so or not, I do not know, but there must be some design in 
withholding the locality and dates, the names of the authors and the 
signatures of magistrates. Was it because they did not want me 
and the public to know who are the persons — whether members of 
this Faculty, lawyers or ministers, that have itinerated round, coaxed 
and worked up those over-strained statements and affidavits ? But I 
do know that one D. G-. Harriman— who was at the time Louise left, 
one of this Faculty, but now he is practising law in Portland — 
was known to be at Dixfield on the first of December, 1867, where 
he declared he was on his way to Roxbury to see Mira I. Reed, from 
whom he was going to try to get an affidavit to off-set the one that 
was in Mr. Greene's book, and that he arrived at her residence in 
Roxbury and there remained some length of time, out of which grew 
this wonderful affidavit, of which in the first part she declared she 
signed the affidavit in the " Crown Won," and in closing she says — 
" The foregoing statements have been made of my own free will, and 
without solicitation, prompted simply by a sense of duty." 

The reader will notice in her letter to me of -November, 18, 1867, 
after she found her statement published, she does not complain that 
she finds more statement published than she gave me, or that they 
were too strong, but says — " Are you sure, in so doing, you have 
given all the facts as they are in the original ?" 

This committee have said, " we have carefully avoided any state- 
ment injurious to the reputation of the deceased, etc." 

What was the object of parading the testimony of Miss Church 
before the public, when the subject matter of that testimony has been 



62 A REJOINDER TO THE REPLY 

publicly admitted and never denied ? The only thing that has been 
gained by it, is a refutation of Miss Case's false insinuation respect- 
ing the key and an expose of her willingness to shield the living at 
the expense of the character of the dead. 

When the Trustees sent D. G-. Harriman to try to get Miss Reed 
to recant or deny 'her sworn statement in the " Crown Won," they 
knew that by so doing they should injure her character and standing 
if they succeeded. But what care they who they injure, if they can 
save their Faculty ? They wished to destroy her testimony, hence 
their writing and fawning around her. 

Some of my readers may ask who is this J. W. H., or J. W. Hath- 
away, whose name for the past year frequently appeared in various 
Journals of this State, under different little puffs in favor of the 
Maine Wesleyan Seminary and College, and in favor of Dr. T. and 
the management of that school, with squibs against me and my book, 
asking the reader of the :i Crown Won/' to suspend their judg- 
ment, etc., until a counter statement can be made. He is a paid 
agent and one of their ministers who is travelling the State, begging 
for and extolling that institution. This same Reverend gentleman 
petitioned and hung round the last Legislature to get through a re- 
solve in aid of the same. He failed in that effort, but got it referred 
to the next Legislature, when he or some agent for them, will try to 
push a resolve through, which will take six or seven thousand dol- 
lars out of the State. I ask no suspension of opinion of what that 
Faculty or Trustees have or may publish in this sad case. But I do 
desire that all who have read the Reply, and all who wish to know 
anything about this case, to read the Rejoinder and the Crown Won, 
and then form your own opinion, only asking yourselves this ques- 
tion : If this was your child or friend, instead of mine, how would 
the whole matter look to you ; and what less would you have said 
than I have ? 

This committee make a grave charge against me, (because I make 
an effort to put my version of this heart-rending affair before the 
public, and say, in the Grown Won, ' ; It is my object to circulate the 
same as extensively as possible,) and insinuate that my object is not 
to vindicate the reputation of my daughter, but my real object was 
to make money. They understand how such insinuations will take 
with some people. After spending fifteen hundred dollars in conse- 
quence of sending my daughter to that Seminary, and about five 
hundred more in search to find our lost and heart-broken girl, I did 



UWhE KENT 



HE KENT'S HILL TRAGEDY. 63 

not feel able to publish, and pay all the expenses of distributing so 
expensive a pamphlet (which contains more than double the amount 
of reading than their reply,) .free. But this Rejoinder, a pamphlet 
of 64 pages, I will send by mail, postage prepaid, to all who desire a 
copy, on the receipt of fifteen cents. 

On receipt of fifty cents, a copy of the Eejoinder and- Crown Won 
will be sent with postage paid anywhere in the U. S. And for the 
information of those who think I am making money in publishing 
and distributing the Crown Won, I will give them the amount of 
my outlay and income on the account of the publication and sale of 
said pamphlet. 
Paid for printing the ' ; Crown Won," $1,115 00 

(For which I have their receipt.) 
Received for the sale of the " Crown Won." 8502 00 
I have on hand, and in agents' hands, books 

to the amount of about 8263 00 

765 00 



Loss, if the books all sell, $350 00 

This denomination, through their circuit preachers, have been 
pushing the sales of this scandalous Reply in ail directions to force 
upon the public the four thousand copies which they have print- 
ed, and to make the public believe that I and my family are un- 
worthy of belief, and not fit to live outside of the State prison. 
The preacher on this charge has pretended great sympathy for us 
in our affliction, yet he has carried round and sold this wicked and 
contemptible Reply to our neighbors and townsmen. A reply 
which denounces all I have proved and shown as false. It's theme 
is in substance, you lie ; your statements are false. You lie \ your 
statements are false from beginning to end. While this committee 
would make you believe that they and all who dealt with our child 
were perfect patterns to follow — full of truth, justice, love, mercy, 
humanity and morality : free from sin, infallible, not liable to err or 
make any mistake. Perfect saints. If all they say is credited, who 
will wonder to see our pew vacant when men of that denomination 
fill the pulpit ? I appeal to every honest reader of their Reply to 
say how much of the teachings of Christ is exhibited towards me or 
my family in the same ; or by the Faculty in their whole transaction 
with my child, her parents and friends. 

Since my Rejoinder was nearly all in type I received a letter, from 
which I extract the following : 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



64 A REJOINDER TO THE REPiir~ Ml 

020 646 272 3 

' ; I got on board the stage at the post-office. I was on the platform, 
and in the office, while the mail was being changed. # * * * 
* k '.'-* Y * * I noticed Miss Gregne, and that she was or had 
been crying. * * I noticed that she made no conversation, ex- 
cept to answer direct questions. I noticed her in the depot while- 
waiting for tile train. I supposed that she had met with some cal- 
amity, but never thought of there being any trouble in the school, as 
I always heard her spoken of as an exemplary young lady. * * * 
] emphatically say she showed signs in her face when I first saw 
her of recent tears." 

Here comesjout a true statement of our poor child's appearance and 
feelings when leaving the scene of her trouble. I think her accuser, 
and those who testify to her unfeeling appearance on the day she left 
the Hill, will on their death bed have something to regret and think 
of before they pass to meet Louise in the other world, A trader in 
Readfield states that a friend confidentially told him that he heard 
Benj. Vv 7 . Harriman say that Louise Greene was much affected and 
wept while on the route from KenJ's Hill to the depot. He (Har- 
riman) believed she would not return to her father's, but would wan- 
der. Compare this statement with his in the Reply, and you will 
see what they can do at the Hill. 

A gentleman in Readfield, of position and note, will state on oath 
in any court of law, that Anson P. Morrill, about one week after the 
sad affair at Kent's Hill, said, " This Louise Greene affair is the^most 
damning thing that ever happened in this vicinity ; and if she was a 
daughter of mine I would follow it as long as I had a cent left." 
Here come out the honest sentiments of his and every parent's heart. 

Another gentleman in Readfield told me in November, 1866, that 
G-ov. A. P. Morrill said, soon after Louise's remains were found, 
that he should rather be in Louise Greene's place than Dr. Torsey's. 

He also talked very friendly to me on the 26th day" of January, 
1867. at. his house, where he had invited me to make a call. He 
then showed much sympathy for our great loss. Why has he lent 
his name and influence to try to crush, disgrace and break me«and 
my family down, as he has in the Reply ? Are not our troubles 
hard enough ? If this case was reversed between us, he could but 
see and feel as I do. 



/ 



